Loading...
2008 01 22 PCc CiAr ty of La Quinta Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page GF` T'9 @ www.la-guinta.org OF PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California JANUARY 22, 2008 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2008-007 Beginning Minute Motion 2008-002 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT 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. Ill. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 8, 2008. 'J V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. A. Item .................... CONTINUED — SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-895 Applicant ............. K. Hovnanian Homes Location .............. Northwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 58. Request ............... Consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three prototypical residential plans for use in Tract 30092 (Piazza Serena) Action ................ Minute Motion 2008- B. Item .................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-899 Applicant ............. East of Madison, LLC. Location .............. Northeast corner of Avenue 54 and Gary Avenue within the Madison Club Request ............... Consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a one-story 1,163 square foot Homeowners' Association Country Club Mailhouse facility. Action ................ Resolution 2008-_ VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Item .................... FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 2007-025 Applicant ............. Innovative Communities Location .............. Northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street Request ............... Review of Final Landscaping Plans for Watermark Villas interior common area and perimeter landscaping. Action ................ Minute Motion 2008- VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of January 15, 2008. IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on February 12, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, January 22, 2008 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, on Friday, January 18, 2008. DATED: January 18, 2008 'X CAROL WALKER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California Public Notices The La Quinta City council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-four (24 hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background materials is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA January 8, 2008 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Alderson who asked Commissioner Barrows to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Katie Barrows, Paul Quill, Robert Wilkinson, and Chairman Ed Alderson. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Quill to excuse Commissioner Engle. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Principal Planner Wallace Nesbit, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, and Management Assistant Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. PRESENTATION: None. IV. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. V. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of December 11, 2007. There being none, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Quill to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Site Development Permit 2007-896; a request of Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District (CVRPD) for consideration of Phase 1 development plans (Passive Public Park, Trails, and Interpretive Center) for the "Coral Mountain Discovery Park to be located at the southeast quadrant of Jefferson Street and Avenue 58. G\WPDOCS\PC Minutes=08\1-8-08.doc Planning Commission Minutes 1. 2007 1. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Director Les Johnson stated the applicant has requested the application be tabled at this time and when the applicant is ready, staff will renotice the project for public hearing. 2. There being no questions of staff, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Barrows to table Site Development Permit 2007-896. Unanimously approved. B. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendment 2006-107 Zone Change 2006-127 Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment No. 6 Tentative Tract Map 33226 site Development Permit 2006-852, and Development Agreement 2006-01 1; a request of Pacific Santa Fe Corporation/Crowne Pointe Partners, LLC for consideration of: 1) General Plan Amendment 2006-107 a request to amend the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element, from Tourist Commercial (TC) to Resort Mixed Use (RMU) on ±42 acres; 2) Zone Change 2006-127, a request to change the La Quinta Official Zoning Map, from Tourist Commercial (CT) to Tourist Commercial/Residential Specific Plan (CT/RSP), on ±42 acres; 3) Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment No. 6, amending the PGA West Specific Plan to implement development principles and guidelines for a 290-unit (revised from 292 units) residential condominium project, with clubhouse building, common pools and lighted tennis courts; 4) Tentative Tract Map 33226, a division of ±42 acres into 97 residential lots, a 1.35 acre community center lot, and other common area lots; 5) Site Development Permit 2006-852, for site plan and building design approval for 290 (revised from 292) one, two and three-story single-family and condominium units, a 7,122 square foot recreation building with a 32 x 70-foot common pool and 43-foot, 6-inch clock tower feature, and a private entry gatehouse; 6) Development Agreement 2006-01 1, consideration of an Agreement to implement a funding mechanism ensuring payment to the City of certain fees to financially offset the conversion of the original hotel/resort site to residential, for the anticipated potential for lost revenue(s) associated with development of the Eden Rock project, for the property located within the PGA West development, generally bounded on the north and east by the PGA West Stadium Course and Clubhouse, and on the south and west by PGA Boulevard. 1 . Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2 Planning Commission Minutes 1, 2007 2. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Quill stated he did not believe the addition of 292 units would make any kind of impact on this development when it has already been approved for 5,000 units and this is still so far under what was originally approved and why any environmental review was required. Planning Director Les Johnson stated this Specific Plan Amendment is for the change in land use. Commissioner Quill asked staff to explain the density described in the staff report. Staff explained how the density average was reached. Commissioner Quill questioned how this project, which is 10% of the overall density of the project, should be required to pay 40% of the signal cost at Jefferson Street and Avenue 54. Also, he would like to go on record that in regard to the Development Agreement, this document is inequitable as it relates to other residential property. We call this community a residential community for the purposes of developer impact fees. However, we are in addition extracting a one time mitigation fee for the replacement of Transient Occupant Tax for the residential project plus asking for an on -going fee of the residents whether they are renting their unit or not. If a resident lives in the unit and it is their home, he does not understand why we should be charging an on -going fee as well as the one time developer impact fee. 3. Commissioner Quill stated lastly, he asked if the landscaping plans would come back to the Commission. This project appears to be very lush and a large amount of turf. Staff stated they will be required to go through the City's landscaping approval process. If the Commission wants it to come back to them, the project can be conditioned to come back. 4. Commissioner Quill questioned why the Ramona Band of Indians was requesting a tribal monitor be required as they seem to be so far removed from the area. Staff stated the City has been receiving more and more letters from interested tribes outside the Coachella Valley. They are able to comment on the EIR, but the SB 18 comment period has already been closed before receipt of their letter. This does not preclude them from making comment on the DEIR and staff will respond through the CEQA process. Planning Consultant Criste stated letters are being received from tribes where there has been some historical interest and the Ramona tribe has requested monitoring. 3 Planning Commission Minutes 1, 2007 5. Commissioner Wilkinson asked what type of variable there was along the north perimeter for grading where the Manor units are located; how much lower could the grading be reduced. Staff stated it appears from a preliminary review, the units are placed slightly below the existing grade on the upper slope that slopes down to the golf cart path. The amount of dirt that could be removed would need to be determined at a later date when the final engineering is done. 6. Chairman Alderson asked about the grading plan and dirt import. Given that staff is recommending the northerly portion be lowered to lessen the impact, the dirt would not be needed if the grading consideration could be made. He also stated the site slopes 12- 15 feet from the north to the south in grade with the center being depressed from the edges nine feet which is the equivalent of one story of a house. What takes the center condominiums or cluster homes to the same elevation with the third story tower, would be the same height as the building. The houses that are impacted by the site are 1,100 to 1,300 feet away with the exception of the houses on the north end and the applicant has lowered the units to one story. If you look at the direction the houses adjacent to the project face, none of them look into this site. 7. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mark Rockwell, CEO of Pacific Santa Fe Corporation, gave a presentation on the overall project and introduced Gil Martinez, GMA International, who gave a more detailed report on the project. 8. There being no questions of the applicant, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. James Cox, 55-914 Brae Burn, has been working on this project for the last two and half years with the staff and the applicant. They have made numerous suggestions regarding what they would like to see and would like to expand upon what they have discussed with the developer and staff. One of their main problems is the density issue. They have talked with the developer on numerous occasions about reducing the density. During one discussion they asked the developer to substitute the Courtyard units for the Village units. After that meeting they were lead to believe there would be some changes. They found this did not pencil out for the developer. They met again and the developer stated he would try to make this change. The other issue is the rental units. They rd Planning Commission Minutes 1, 2007 would like a minimum 30-day rental as is common in other developments in La Quinta. The developer initially agreed with this but when he read the Development Agreement it called for the annual fee to the City by each unit owner to be credited with a TOT. The developer was not happy as this amount of money would have to be added to the Association dues which did not help the marketability. They would like to see the annual fee changed to give the City revenue but not be a TOT. He presented this to the City and was told they would have to discuss this with the developer. To date they have had no reduction in the density or the rental time frame. 9. Ms. Vicki Merchant 79-768 Arnold Palmer, stated she is a full time resident and represents some of the 850 people who signed a petition objecting the project. She attended most of the meetings presented by the developer and was told this project would consist of full-time residents. In looking at the recommendations being presented, that is not the case. The City is clearly asking for TOT or annual costs. This would encourage rentals for the homeowners to off -set these costs. They are confused why the City would promote such a project as a TOT facility or "quasi hotel". The grant deed clearly precludes the use of this property as a hotel or other TOT facility. A "quasi hotel" would harm their property values. 290 units that could be purchased for short term rentals for investment capital would do environmental affects such as security infractions, using their golf courses, private pools in their residential areas without any right to do so. The project will only have one swimming pool but states it will have two pools. This is not sufficient for 290 units. It will encourage them to come into their residential areas and use their pools and other facilities. Everyone keeps talking about the 5000 homes that were part of the original PGA West Specific Plan. That included what is now SilverRock, Mountain View Country Club and the surrounding area that is still owned by KSL. That was part of the 5,000 homes. When KSL sold that property that reduced the density; part of that land was sold off. Staff stated that was incorrect. She re -iterated they would not like this to go forward as proposed and they do not want the short-term rentals. 10. Commissioner Quill asked that the issue of TOT and rental time frame be explained. City Attorney Kathy Jenson clarified the Development Agreement would allow rentals for less than 30- 5 Planning Commission Minutes 1, 2007 days. Ms. Merchant stated there is no specific time in the report, but there is an amount that could be assessed and is the recommendation of staff to assess each unit. She believes that it is $1,400 per unit a year and this would encourage the property owners to rent their units out to get back their money paid to the City. 11. Mr. Gary Dolenga, 55-457 Oak Hill, stated he was discouraged about speaking because he was told the City had already made up their minds. They have been full time residents and are pleased with the development theme of one story, single -story homes for PGA West. The residential building code for PGA West since the 1990's, which governs the 1,700 acres surrounding the 40 acre project states the purpose of the theme is to provide for the continuing development of low density neighborhoods, 2-4 units per acre, with open space and minor uses supporting golf. Over 1,000 single family houses have been built on this code. This 40 acre high density, multi -level proposal is being jammed into the middle of their 1,700 acre project and dilutes the theme of what has been going on here for the last 15 years. We have it on good authority a single-family one story project would be viable. The developer states it is not viable; however no documentation has been provided to substantiate this statement. If the City continues to allow the developer to violate the grant deed restrictions regarding a TOT facility on this site, they believe a boutique hotel, which would also violate the grant deed, would be a better and more viable alternative. A hotel would have better security and guest control while limiting the number of guests per room and would not give automatic access to PGA West neighborhoods and would provide amenities for the guests. As taxpayers they are confused why the City would approve a "quasi hotel" which would compete with the hotel and condo project proposed for the SilverRock project. As they understand the SilverRock project is not financially self sustaining and approval of a competitive project next door is a questionable decision at best. 12. Mr. Richard Stanton, 80-706 Spanish Bay, stated this piece is the center point of PGA West and a hotel would be a wonderful project to have at this location. If you are going to change the zoning you should follow the guidelines when this City formed the residential specific plan in the 1990's which was 2-4 units per acre. In discussing this with the developer, he has indicated the density should be reduced. The developer has told them this l31 Planning Commission Minutes 1, 2007 project is less dense than the hotel. If they had a hotel it would allow more amenities for the residents and the guests they didn't want at their house could stay at the hotel. As a developer he understands the balancing act that is needed between the developer and the City. But in this project where TOT is required the City and the developer are getting what they want and it is changing the overall character of what the residents want at PGA West. It is not their problem that the economics do not work and the density needs to be reduced. He has read the SEIR and provided comments. He does not believe the SEIR is complete as proposed and there are alternatives where the SEIR points to mitigation measures for density, traffic and parking. Staff has done a good job in reducing the height on the northern units. They have also indicated the parking requirements that must be complied with is parking in the driveways. His concern is the 128 units in the middle of this project. That is a tremendous volume where there is no golf cart parking. If you have people with two cars and guests that is a lot of traffic in that courtyard. The height and parking areas need to be evaluated. The 128 units at the center of the project with no golf cart parking there will be a lot of traffic in the center focal point in the courtyard. If you approve this project you are diluting what was approved in 1996 and allowing something to come into the prime area of PGA West which will not be in character and will cause harmony with the rest of the community. 13. Mr. Richard Mills, 81-600 Tiburon Drive, stated he did not have the ability to debate the technicalities of this project and he does not live close to where this project is proposed, but this project is not compatible with PGA West. They were told that the site line would not affect anyone who lives there and now they find it will affect 30 homes. It should not affect one house. The City should not be driven by revenue problems 14. Commissioner Quill asked if they were aware this site was designated as a 1,000 room six story hotel. Mr. Mills stated he is not interested in what was designated 20 years ago. Times change, we change and the whole development has changed. PGA West is a single family residential community and it is just that simple. We need to be looking at the aesthetics and how much this means to the core people of PGA West. 7 Planning Commission Minutes 1, 2007 15. Mr. Jim Murphy, 54-580 Riviera, stated their concern is PGA Boulevard which is the primary entrance to the entire development. This street affects the value and look of their property. Their concern is that now due to the changes made by the City over the years, this is the only street accessible to the property for its development. Therefore, for a period of about two to five years, the tremendous amount of construction traffic that will have to go down this street, that was not built to handle this type of traffic, they would like to request a deposit be made to the association so that at the completion of the project the street is returned to its original condition. 16. Ms. Christine Deniel 79-860 Pecan Valley, stated she serves as the Chair for La Quinta Investment Advisory Board, and basically the paradine of the City has changed. Since the time PGA West was designed she does not care how many rooms the hotel was to have; change has taken place and the City and the City no longer has a budget or financial problem. It has changed from relying on building permits and TOT to relying on sales tax. For the first time in the year of 2007 we have had a surplus budget and every request in the budget was granted. The City does not need the money from the TOT. Therefore, the purpose of this Commission should be to satisfy the residents and voters of the City and not the outside developer who wants to make a profit on a property. We need to keep the look and ambiance of PGA West which is single family homes, one story. 17. Mr. Howard Culver, 55-501 Southern Hills, stated his first issue is the story poles to address the visual and aesthetic concerns of the City and personnel. It is imperative that instead of the story poles, to show the site line there should be ropes strung between the poles with flags dangling from them so everyone around the project could see the impact and comment on it. The second issue is the time piece on the project. Everyone has a time piece on their person. They do not need a time piece in that project to tell the time. Furthermore, they do not need a time piece that is four stories tall and obliterates everything. The defining visual feature of PGA West should be Coral Mountain. The clock tower should go. 18. Mr. Gary Murphy, 80-068 Medinah, stated most everything has already been said, but there is one point that is critical. We have a hotel being proposed by Lowes, obviously is going forward, that K Planning Commission Minutes 1. 2007 would not go forward if the City had not given them assurance that the zoning would be changed at PGA West. This is just one example of how they, the residents at PGA West, have been addressed at the end of the process instead of the beginning. Since they cannot be a part of the beginning of this process and are now here tonight, he would implore the Commission to use their sensitivity and respect their community and help them with their sincere wishes to keep PGA West as it is now. 19. Ms. Janet Hamilton 55-575 Oak Hill, stated she is within the 500 foot radius of this development. Her request to the Commission is that before they plop this development in the middle of their community would you please see what they have done by approving the monstrosities at Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. She lives at PGA West, but is a member of the Hideaway, and when you have two story buildings of a different style, sticking up within a few feet it can and will be atrocious. Go to the Hideaway and look at it. 20. Mr. Chuck Godia 54-799 Riveria, stated there are two issues that have not been raised. One is that the elevations are about 20 feet above the elevation of the street and he does not understand how they can build this on a pile of dirt that is much higher than any other level in the whole project. At a minimum it should be lowered to street level and probably more aesthetically to the level of the homes that exist at the 18`h hole of the Stadium Course. Second, he does not understand where the Tuscany style comes from. It is so foreign to what exists at PGA West and does not fit nor does the color fit with their community. 21. City Attorney Kathy Jenson clarified that regarding the comment that was made that Lowe Enterprises had been assured this zone change would take place, she has been involved with the Lowe negotiations since the beginning to the bitter end and this topic was never raised and they never even made a request or inquiry with regard to a zone change. There has been no assurance given to Lowe in regard to this property. 22. Commissioner Quill stated that in regard to the reduction in the size of the hotel, there is nothing in the documents that he read that ever indicated that this has been reduced from 1,000 rooms to anything less than that. Planning Director Les Johnson stated that is true. There is no official change that has occurred from E Planning Commission Minutes 1, 2007 that Specific Plan change or subsequent plot plan application. 23. Mr. Richard Zeilenga, legal counsel for the applicant, stated he would like to address some of the issues addressed by the public comments. Most of the issues raised are views, architectural compatibility, building height, traffic, density, rental issues, and the issue he would like to discuss, the concessions that have already been made. The real question is whether these issues are relevant to the project based on the evidence presented. First the EIR concludes there are no significant visual impacts. The Commission noted the distances between some of the residents and the elements of this project are quite far and in some instances more than three football fields in length. The second point is that there is no impact to any scenic highways or image corridors in the City. The third point is that the project enhances an existing dirt lot. Some of those who spoke have noted the dirt lot has been there for a long time and they do not like it. This project addresses the dirt lot by enhancing the visual impact. He then went through slides showing what exists and what it would look like with the development built. Finally mountain views are preserved and the visual photos confirm it does not impact the views. You will note that in the photos, the clock tower is not visible. In regard to architectural compatibility or the building height point, the City's General Plan governs development in the City. It currently envisions a 1,000 foot hotel. The existing hotel that is approved and could be built. The rendering they are showing is what they would see and the impact it would have on the project. This impact on the mountains is far more substantial than anything we are talking about with this residential project. So, in terms of what the General Plan shows now, it is a substantial improvement in terms of preserving the mountain views from the Stadium Clubhouse at PGA West. He realizes some people believe the hotel is not real because there is a deed restriction that prohibits the hotel. However, the City believes it is real because they insist they sign a Development Agreement requiring them to pay substantial TOT mitigation as if it were going to be a hotel site. Therefore, it is real to them. The next point is the clock tower and it is much lower than the planned six story hotel. The clock tower is well removed from the project borders. The three story village homes are much lower than the six story hotel. The element referred to as the third story is really a small component that appears on four corners of the structure and is not visible from golf course. The three story elements is 10 Planning Commission Minutes 1, 2007 only 12.5 of the total roof area and therefore very small. Lastly, the three story village homes are the same as or lower than the two story manor homes. They are lower because of the pad elevations. The two story manor homes rooftop elevations are between 524 and 527 feet. The three story village home rooftop elevation is between 524 and 526, which appears to be one foot less than the two story manor units. This is because the center area of the project site is lower than where the manor homes are located. With respect to the building heights, concerns have been expressed, but are they justified. In light of what could be built according to the General Plan they are not. The next point is traffic; there was an enlarged traffic study scope required by the City including six study intersections. A conservative 20% upward adjustment was made in the numbers because the counts were taken in May, which is considered outside the prime season. Compared to the planned hotel use it is massively less. The General Plan assumed the hotel would generate 10,488 average daily trips. The Eden Rock project generates 1,711 average daily trips or 8,770 few daily trips for an 83% reduction. The conclusion is that all the study area intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service with mitigation only needed at Jefferson Street and Avenue 54 and additional trips are reduced by 83%. To sum up, they ask are the traffic concerns justified; how could they be. PGA Boulevard was constructed assuming there was going to be a 1,000 room hotel and 100,000 square feet of commercial development that is not going to happen. Now they are proposing something that is radically less than a six story 1,000 room hotel. They believe this is an improvement over what the General Plan assumes for traffic. On density it is less than the General Plan's planned hotel use. The impacts are less than what was proposed both in terms of car trips, mountain views and noise. It helps meet the City's General Plan housing goals to have diversified housing products. This offers a better housing project for PGA West. It offers those that want to down - size to move to a different product within PGA West, but stay with their friends and not have the maintenance and expense. The housing density has been reduced to accommodate the HOA demands. They started with a project consisting of 310 units and have gone down to 290 units. There have already been repeated efforts to work with the HOA in regard to density. CEQA, with respect to density, states that where you have other ways of reducing an impact on traffic, or views, you should not drop density for the sake of dropping density. Public Resources Code 11 Planning Commission Minutes 1. 2007 21 159.26 provides that with respect to a project that includes a housing development the public agency may not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure or project alternative for a particular significant affect on the environment if it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure or project alternative that would provide a comparable level of mitigation. They believe staff has done a good job of demonstrating other mitigation that can reduce impacts or there are no impacts for which density should be reduced. The Commission does have general discretion planning authority in regard to density. But in the context of CEQA, when someone says reduce density for the sake of reducing density, this provision suggests that is not appropriate with respect to CEQA mitigation. In staff's presentation, they suggest the second story of the manor units along the golf course on the north side. He supposes staff was concerned about the line of site from the golf course looking north to the south. What they have demonstrated is that the residences are so far away there really isn't any impact. That eliminates another 17 units and not financially viable to this project and they are opposed. In regard to the rental and the concerns raised, currently, there are 375 rentals at PGA West or 15%. If you take 15% of the 290 you would have 43 rentals at Eden Rock. They believe Eden Rock would be better regulated because they would have an on -site manager to handle any problems. Fourth, the rentals would provide revenue to the City which has been expressed as being an important point. Fifth they would be willing to accept similar regulations as are currently imposed on PGA West and it is his understanding there are no regulations on any unit at PGA West. In regard to concessions to the HOAs as addressed in a letter to the City by Mr. Cox. He states they have met with the applicant and it has not produced any tangible results. Concessions have been made repeatedly. First they have reduced the density by 30%; the perimeter wall has been changed to their satisfaction; gatehouse changes to the entry drive was changed to meet their concerns; they added a third entry lane; the golf cart paths were reoriented to their requests; they have granted HOA review and input in regard to the landscaping; and finally they reduced the pad elevation of the Manor homes on the north side. With regard to the continuance suggestion, they do not believe there is any viable reason for a continuance. In the overall scheme of tract development 292 homes is not a large project. 12 Planning Commission Minutes 1, 2007 24. Commissioner Quill stated it was suggested by some of those who spoke that the zoning was changed in the 1990's to require single family homes; he is not aware of any change. Planning Director Les Johnson stated he is not aware of any change requiring single family dwellings and there is no document that he is aware of that requires the units must be single family. 25. Mr. Richard Olson, 54-591 Riviera stated he came to this meeting with an open mind. He is now against the project as he believes the applicant's attorney has talked down to the residents and was insulting to their comments. 26. Mr. Cox stated he has a document provided by the City when Eagle Bend was being built and they were advocating a two story product. He read a comment from the document. 27. Mr. Audrey Mattey, 80-895 Weiskopf stated she resents the fact that as she ages she will want a smaller place. She just retired and moved here to PGA West. It is condescending to think that their concerns are not justified. Compared to the rest of PGA West this is a higher density and higher elevation and to say it will not affect their homes is wrong. It is better than a hotel, but it is the better of two evils. They want to keep their character; what PGA West is - a place of single family single -story homes. Why do they need to change it. Also, he said he would be willing to have a 30-day rental minimum so they could be just like the rest of PGA West. If they want to be just like them, then build single family, single story homes. 28. Mr. Rick Zeilenga stated that in regard to the document that Mr. Cox presented, it is his understanding that it applies to Planning Area I which does not apply to their site. 29. There being no further public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing and asked for Commission discussion. Commissioner Quill stated he was the construction manager for the Landmark Land Company and Sunrise Company when PGA West was first built. At that time they built duplex, four-plex and six-plex condominium units throughout the Palmer and Stadium Course. The only reason they stopped building condos was due to a HOA litigation that occurred throughout the State. They then built single-family homes. There were also some eight-plex, two story units built on some of the courses. In regard to 13 Planning Commission Minutes 1, 2007 architectural compatibility, there is none within the overall PGA West. It started with contemporary, then moved to a more Spanish theme as time changed. This Tuscan look is a little better than the new contemporary look that could be there. This project is so much less impacted from an environmental stand point than anything else that could go there. He cannot see any issues with regard to traffic. He sees no problem with this project and believes it will enhance the blight of the core of PGA West. In regard to their approval of the Codorniz project he hopes they approve a lot more of those projects. With the type of development that is having to occur due to green building concerns there will be more density and it will be an issue to be addressed in the future. 30. Commissioner Barrows stated she would have concerns about the density and height of the project as proposed not because density is a problem, but with respect to the surrounding neighbors. She appreciates the General Plan designation allows for a hotel, but a hotel versus a residential project are different in terms of their impact on the neighborhood. While she is not willing to suggest the project is completely inappropriate, she agrees there is room for density because of the impacts on our environment and our need to utilize it more efficiency. She would however, still like to see some modifications. She is concerned that although they are looking at density and walkability, she sees little else that reflects concern for our environment. The landscaping is much too lush and even though PGA West has that theme, the City is trying to make changes to address water concerns. Irrigation plans need to be addressed to provide no turf options and would like to see the amount of turf reduced. We are in a crisis situation in regard to water and we need to be concerned about the impacts to the environment. In particular in regard to some of the elevations, she finds it to be a little complicated. It looks too complicated. The duplexes for the Manor homes the front elevation needs work. She agrees with the comments made about the clock tower. The mountains are the monument and view and having a clock tower sticking up does not add anything and she would like to see it eliminated. She would like to see some reduction in the elevations. Possibly removing the third story which would help to eliminate some of the busyness of the project. She would like to see some of the height issues addressed. While she appreciates the concessions that have been made, more could be done. 14 Planning Commission Minutes 1, 2007 31. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the Manor Homes would be reduced by two feet. Mr. Zeilinga stated it could be reduced by two feet. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about the time limitation on the rentals. City Attorney Kathy Jenson states the Development Agreement does not put a 30-day limitation on the rentals. It is anticipated that it will do short-term rentals because that is what is subject to the TOT. The deed restriction is irrelevant to the City's consideration. It is envisioned there would be short-term rentals. Commissioner Wilkinson asked In regard to traffic and the amount of space for vehicles in the courtyard area and people being able to get in and out of the driveway. Are there any provisions to allow for additional parking. Planning Director Les Johnson stated there have been discussions with the developer on this issue and there may be some potential for the developer to allow on -street parking. It is a tight area and they have tried to add as much as possible as they have gone through the process with the project. Commissioner Wilkinson asked how they could address the grade issue. Planning Manager Les Johnson stated it is up to the Commission. If the Commission wishes they can condition the applicant to go lower as long as the utilities and storm water flows adequately. 32. Chairman Alderson stated he was in favor of the two foot grade lowering as long as it allows the site to drain properly. The elevation change would probably be a benefit to the site line. There appears to be three main issues. Lowering the clock tower four feet has been agreed to. Staff stated they had added this into the conditions. Chairman Alderson stated that as far as the site lines, the three story units will not be visible from the perimeter when the site is lowered. When you analyze the views from 1000 feet away, the houses behind them are the same height and no issue. The architecture mix is not a problem; it is a community unto itself. He asked if the landscaping plans could be brought back at a later date as well as the guardhouse. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated yes, it could be added as a conditioned. 33. Commissioner Quill suggested a condition be added that the grades be dropped as significantly as is feasible in the north perimeter from an engineering standpoint and remove the clock tower. He agrees the landscape plans should be brought back to the Commission for approval. Staff asked if they were asking for them in the preliminary stage or final. Commissioner Quill stated 15 Planning Commission Minutes 1, 2007 not the irrigation, but the plant location and palette and anything related to landscape use at full construction drawing scale. 34. Chairman Alderson stated the water uses should also be reduced in regard to water conservation concerns. 35. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification on staff's recommendation on which units should be reduced in height. Staff clarified they were recommending the third story be eliminated from the units relative to the perimeter of the site where they may be more visible. Commissioner Barrows stated that in regard to the view to the north the elevations should be broken up to provide a view corridor. 36. Commissioner Quill stated he does not support the reduction in density. The site can be lowered significantly, especially in the area of the 18`" hole and probably more than two feet. 37. Commissioner Barrows stated she would like to see the third story removed. Planning Manager Les Johnson stated removing the third story of the Village units and the second story of the Manor units was for discussion not a recommendation. The discussion on the third story of the Village units is the removal of the loft unit within the Village. It is a loft unit and would reduce the unit count. However, with the Manor units, he counts 13 units, so there are already two units identified to bring the count down to 290. There is a remainder of 13 units that would be affected by a reduction of height per the discussion in the Analysis Section. The Village unit height reduction affects the number of bedrooms, and not the total units. 38. Commissioner Quill stated he supported eliminating the two units adjacent to the existing homes. Staff stated that within each cluster of 16 Village units, there are four units that have a loft unit. Commissioner Quill stated they are pop-up units then. Commissioner Quill asked if a condition could be added to require this project to exceed Title 24 requirements to make it a more efficient project. There is a lot of passive energy control items added, but could they push it to a higher level. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated we do not have a policy so it is hard, but the Commission could impose conditions to provide direction for the developer to increase its energy efficiency. She would recommend they work with staff to incorporate feasible measures 16 Planning Commission Minutes 1, 2007 to reduce any aspect the Commission determines should be done. 39. Commissioner Barrows stated she would like to see that all turf adjacent to the roadways be removed. Staff stated the no turf option was not identified because there are no single family units in this project. Separation of turf along the roadways could be required instead of a no turf option. 40. Commissioner Quill stated he believes this project will have a problem meeting the new water requirements as they are now adopted. Turf has to have more than one use and cannot be wasted flowing out onto the street. 41. Chairman Alderson stated he would not want the elevation to exceed to the point that it requires dirt to be exported. 42. Commissioner Quill stated he would like to see it exported to allow the height to be reduced. If it could be dropped six feet, then they should do so. 43. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Wilkinson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2008-001 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 2006-107 as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Quill, Wilkinson, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: Commissioner Barrows. ABSENT: Commissioner Engle. ABSTAIN: None. 44. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Wilkinson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2008-002 recommending approval of Zone Change 2006-127 as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Quill, Wilkinson, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: Commissioner Barrows. ABSENT: Commissioner Engle. ABSTAIN: None. 45. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Wilkinson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2008-003 recommending approval of Specific Plan 83- 002, Amendment No. 6, as recommended and amended: 17 Planning Commission Minutes 1, 2007 a. Condition added: The grade elevation shall be reduced as much as possible along the northern boundary. b. Condition added: The landscaping shall be in accordance with new CVWD and City Ordinance and brought back to the Commission for review and approval with a note that there shall be minimum turf on surface sidewalks. d. Condition added: The clock tower eliminated or significantly lowered to 33 feet or not higher than the three story units. e. Condition added: The applicant shall work with staff to attempt to exceed the minimum Title 24 requirements to enhance any energy efficiency elements that are possible. f. Condition added: The Guardhouse shall be brought back to the Commission. g. Condition added: Architectural enhancement shall be added to the Manor duplex units. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Quill, Wilkinson, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: Commissioner Barrows. ABSENT: Commissioner Engle. ABSTAIN: None. 46. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Wilkinson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2008-004 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 33226 as recommended and amended: a. Condition added: The grade elevation shall be reduced as much as possible along the northern boundary. b. Condition added: The landscaping shall be in accordance with new CVWD and City Ordinance and brought back to the Commission for review and approval with a note that there shall be minimum turf on surface sidewalks. C. Condition added: The clock tower eliminated or significantly lowered to 33 feet or not higher than the three story units. d. Condition added: The applicant shall work with staff to attempt to exceed the minimum Title 24 requirements to enhance any energy efficiency elements that are possible. e. Condition added: The Guardhouse shall be brought back to the Commission. f. Condition added: Architectural enhancement shall be added to the Manor duplex units. IU Planning Commission Minutes 1, 2007 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Quill, Wilkinson, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: Commissioner Barrows. ABSENT: Commissioner Engle. ABSTAIN: None. 47. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Wilkinson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2008-005 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2006-852 as recommended and amended: a. Condition added: The grade elevation shall be reduced as much as possible along the northern boundary. b. Condition added: The landscaping shall be in accordance with new CVWD and City Ordinance and brought back to the Commission for review and approval with a note that there shall be minimum turf on surface sidewalks. d. Condition added: The clock tower eliminated or significantly lowered to 33 feet or not higher than the three story units. e. Condition added: The applicant shall work with staff to attempt to exceed the minimum Title 24 requirements to enhance any energy efficiency elements that are possible. f. Condition added: The Guardhouse shall be brought back to the Commission. g. Condition added: Architectural enhancement shall be added to the Manor duplex units. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Quill, Wilkinson, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: Commissioner Barrows. ABSENT: Commissioner Engle. ABSTAIN: None. 48. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Wilkinson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2008-006 recommending approval of Development Agreement 2006-011 as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Quill, Wilkinson, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Engle. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Alderson recessed the Commission at 10:24 P.M. and reconvened at 10:37 p.m. 19 Planning Commission Minutes 1, 2007 VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Consideration of a Schematic Design Package for the SilverRock Clubhouse; a request of the City's Redevelopment Agency for consideration of schematic design package for the SilverRock Resort Clubhouse. 1. Chairman Alderson asked for the staff report. Assistant City Manager Doug Evans presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Quill asked if it would be canal water. Staff stated it will start, but not sure if it will be self contained or part of the irrigation system. The challenge is that if you want clear water you have to move it and to move it you will use more electricity. 3. Commissioner Barrows asked if there was the potential for solar hot water. Staff is looking for any options where solar could be used. Commissioner Barrows asked about incorporating a rock element in the lake design to tie into the mountain landscape and sort of dry wash concept. Maybe some of the area could give the feel of a water area, but have a rock element that might give the visual affect. Staff stated they were looking at all options to create the look without using water. 4. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if there was a synthetic material that could be used on the timbers to not require as much maintenance. Staff stated this design requires the use of real wood to create the effect wanted. 5. Commissioner Quill asked that the lake be multi -functional and somehow a part of the system that is fed through the canal. The more water storage you have the better. Staff stated we do have backup water systems, but intend to use canal water for the most part. 6. Chairman Alderson asked the time schedule for the project. Staff stated they were anticipating opening in late 2009 or early 2010. 7. There being no public comment, the public participation was closed and open for Commission discussion. Planning Commission Minutes 1, 2007 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 2008-001 recommending approval of the schematic Design for the SilverRock Clubhouse. Unanimously approved. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: a. Staff informed the Commissioners about the Planner's Institute and asked for the Commissioners to inform staff as soon as possible if they were going to attend. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting to be held on January 22, 2008. This regular meeting was adjourned at 1 1:14 p.m. on January 8, 2008. Respectfully submitted, Betty Sawyer, Management Assistant City of La Quinta, California 21 PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 22, 2008 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-895 APPLICANT: K. HOVANANIAN HOMES ARCHITECT: EDINGER ARCHIRECTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THREE PROTOTYPICAL RESIDENTIAL PLANS FOR USE IN TRACT 30092 (PIAZZA SERENA) LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF MONROE STREET AND AVENUE 58 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417 (REVISED) PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 30092, AMENDMENT #1 WHICH WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 8, 2002. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166 SINCE THIS PROJECT IMPLEMENTS TENTATIVE TRACT 30092. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: RESIDENCES UNDER CONSTRUCTION SOUTH: DATE PLAN GROVE AND RESIDENCE EAST: VACANT LAND AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY WEST: IID CORPORATE OFFICES AND SUBSTATION GENERAL PLAN/ AND ZONING DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWS: This item has been reviewed by the Planning Commission on two previous occasions, November 27, and December 11, 20027. At the meeting of November 27, 2007 a number of property owners, primarily from the existing homes in the Piazza Serena subdivision voiced a number of concerns (Attachment 1). It was their opinion the optional skydeck for Plan 1 would not be compatible with the neighborhood and intrude upon their privacy. Furthermore, some owners noted they were not informed of any potential second story units when they purchased their homes. Additionally, a number of concerns related to the subdivision were raised, including: 1. Constant water in the retention basins; 2. Lack of landscape maintenance of common areas and perimeters by the developer; 3. Quality of installation, and maintenance of private streets by the developer; 4. Power line relocations over the residential lot at the southwest corner of the tract; and 5. Palm trees planted below power poles along the south side of the tract that will eventually need to be removed. Due to the above issues the Planning Commission continued this item to the meeting of December 11, 2007 (Attachment 2). At the December 11, 2007 meeting the applicant indicated steps they have, or were going to be undertaking to address the concerns brought up at the November hearing. Those steps and/or responses are as follows: 1. Eliminated the second floor skydeck option. 2. Eliminate palm trees on west side of tract. It was clarified that the trees in question were on the south side of the tract adjacent to Avenue 58. 3. Maintenance of the on -site streets on a weekly basis. 4. Streets in front of the completed homes had been capped and the remaining streets would be capped after those homes are constructed. 5. They stated the retention basins had been designed and installed per the City standard at the time of approval. On a short term basis they contracted for periodic maintenance. On a long term basis, they indicated they were working with consultants to provide a more efficient basin design, which they will submit to the City. 6. Other landscape maintenance items brought up by homeowners had been addressed as of November 28, 2007. Furthermore, Public Works Department staff noted the tract improvements, such as streets, retention basins, etc. have not yet been accepted by the City Council. The developer has until September 3, 2008 to complete these improvements which are identified in the existing Subdivision Improvement Agreement bonds. It was noted that according to a representative from Imperial Irrigation District (IID) the 161 kilovolt (KV) power lines that are located adjacent to the west side of Piazza Serena were constructed circa 1991 and haven't been relocated since then. The existing power poles parallel to, and along Avenue 58 were relocated from their original location to the south outside of the existing curbs to their present location as part of the Avenue 58 widening required for Piazza Serena. When the poles were relocated, the connecting power lines between the westerly Avenue 58 pole and the southernmost 161 KV pole was connected. Because the 161 KV pole is not in line with the Avenue 58 pole, the lines run diagonally crossing over the corner of Lot 52 in Piazza Serena. Mexican Fan Palm trees have been planted under the relocated power lines along Avenue 58. Due to their rapid growth, it was noted that the tops of some of the trees will approach the power lines. During the public hearing a number of existing Piazza Serena residents spoke and believe the problems still existed and had not been resolved. The Commission after discussion believed further research and re -study was needed and continued the request to this meeting. In summary, for the January 22, hearing the following issues are identified as needing further attention: 1 . A retention basin solution needs to be determined and implemented. 2. Landscaping maintenance of the common areas need to be completed. 3. Discussion between the developer and IID addressing the power line encroachment over Lot 52 needs to continue. 4. Additional research and discussion on the appropriateness of the palm trees under the power lines needs to take place. 5. Costs for needed improvements need to be borne by the developer and not the existing homeowners. "PROJECT UPDATE": The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the issues that arose at the last meeting (Attachment 3). In the letter the applicant states they believe some issues brought up by the homeowners are internal issues between the homeowners and the developer and the City should not be involved. They do not apply to the request for approval of new units. However, the applicant indicates a willingness to work with the City and homeowners to address matters that have been brought up. Retention Basins: The applicant has met with Public Work staff to discus the on -site retention basins and how to improve their functioning. The applicant notes that both of the basins have been constructed per the approved plans with the existing sand filtering systems now cleaned and operating properly. With regard to the basin at the intersection of Monroe Street and Avenue 58, they state it receives an excessive amount of off -site CVWD generated blow - off water from Avenue 58, and from Madison Street that was not anticipated or designed for. They have contacted CVWD in hopes of resolving this problem. They state the solution, in their opinion, is either to expand the perimeter of the basin and extend the leach lines thus allowing a greater capacity, install a drywell system, or have CVWD redirect their street overflows via an outlet into their own drain lines. They are still studying this matter and indicated they will present a solution to the City for approval and implementation. To date, we have not received any new information on this item. The basin at the intersection of Monroe Street and Avenue 58 needs to function properly since it currently received periodic substantial off -site water flows. Staff is recommending upgrades be completed for this basin to ensure the safety of the residents (See Condition No. 14). The larger interior basin (LOT 1) near the main entry into the project is apparently operating properly as it is currently dry. Landscape Maintenance/Palm Trees: Landscape maintenance of common areas since the first hearing has improved and the applicant has replaced dead and missing plants. Several deciduous trees appear to be dead, but in fact are currently dormant. Some common area lawns appear to have not been overseeded this past fall and therefore are yellow. These areas need to be overseeded immediately. The applicant states they will maintain the landscaping until it is turned over to the homeowners' association. They believe the palm trees under the power lines are not an issue if they are properly maintained. Street Maintenance and Costs of Improvement: They state the streets in the area of the existing homes are capped and complete. An on -site inspection on January 15, 2008 showed that except for a depression area in the asphalt adjacent to the gutter in front of 57-890 Resideza (Lot 34) the streets appear to be capped and completed. There are some chips in parts of the street curbs. These will be repaired as part of the streets improvement requirements included in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) bonds and paid for by the developer. The applicant states they will request an extension to the current SIA bonds as needed since it appears unlikely those improvements will be completed before the September 2008 bond expiration. Power Lines: The applicant does not address the issue of the power lines that cross the corner of Lot 52 at the southwest corner of the tract since the applicant believes it is one of the internal matters. Whether or not IID has an easement in the area where it crosses Lot 52 is outside the purview of this Site Development Permit consideration. Representatives of IID have told staff they will work with property owners to determine if their power lines are having any detrimental effects. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The project site is Piazza Serena, a 97 lot residential subdivision in south La Quinta (Attachment 4). The applicant has constructed 37 residences consisting of three prototypical home plans approved in October 2004. The applicant is proposing to construct three new prototypical plans on the remaining 60 improved lots. Architecture: The applicant has submitted prototypical plans for three residential model plans (Attachment 5). Each plan is designed with three front elevation treatments. The plans as described by the applicant utilize Spanish eclectic, Southern European and Italian country styles of architecture and are proposed to be between 2,514 square feet with no options and 3,178 square feet in size with all options. All plans have various options that either convert interior rooms to other functions or convert the third car garage to living space. All plans are one story in height. The plans identify the building height of Plan 1 as 18'- 1 1 ", Plan 2 as 17'-1 1 " high, and Plan 3 as 18'-9" high. Exterior sand finish plaster is proposed in beige to medium brown tones with contrasting darker tone trim and red/brown blends of concrete "S" roof tile. Some of the Plan front elevations will use decorative stone or tile accents, composite material shutters, decorative exterior lights, and wrought iron and metal accents. Windows and most doors on the sides and rear walls will be provided with plastered popouts. Most front facing windows and the garage doors are recessed. Garage doors are wood sectional roll up doors. Material and color samples and color schemes have been submitted (Attachment 6). A preliminary plotting plan for the units has been submitted as part of the request (Attachment 7). Landscaping: Preliminary typical front yard landscaping plans have been submitted for the plans (Attachment 8). Typical front yard landscaping plans for the three plans include two trees, five gallon shrubs, one gallon groundcover and turf. The turf appears to cover approximately 60-70 per cent of the front yard area. Plant materials identified appear to primarily be low and medium water users. Included is a non -turf front yard option for Plan 3. This plan can be adapted to any plan type and includes an Arizona river rock streambed and decomposed granite with some shrubs spread throughout. One tree will be 24-inch box with the second to be 15 gallons with the species to be one of the following: Cercidium floridum - Blue Palo Verde Rhus lancea - African Sumac Ceratonia siliqua - Carob Chilopsis linearis - Desert Willow Prosopis chilensis - Chilean Mesquite (recommended by ALRC to be replaced) PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS As noted, 37 lots have been developed with home plans previously approved in 2004. Three plan types, of an architectural style similar to those currently proposed, were approved in sizes varying from 2,690 to 3,516 square feet with options (Attachment 9). The existing homes are similar in mass and height. The materials and exterior colors are in the same range of those currently proposed. Photographs of the front elevations of the existing models have also been submitted (Attachment 10). All existing homes, including the models have been sold. These plans will no longer be available for purchase. APPLICABLE ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS: Under Zoning Code Section 9.60.300 pertaining to compatibility requirements for new plans in partially developed subdivisions, the new plan designs must be compatible in the areas of roofing, window treatment, garage door style, colors, roof lines, area, building mass, landscaping and scale. These standards are to ensure that additional new development within existing partially developed subdivisions is compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding existing development in the same subdivision. In summary, the main applicable standards ensure that: 1. The proposed residences are to be compatible with the surrounding residences. 2. The proposed residences fall within the approximate size range of the existing residences. 3. A minimum 24-inch box size tree is provided in the front yard with the same total number of trees as the previously constructed residences. ANALYSIS OF RESIDENTIAL PLANS: Architecturally, the proposed plans are attractive and compatible in design, style material and colors with the existing units. The plans are maintaining the existing architectural flavor in design, materials and colors. The units are required to be within a range that is no more than ten percent smaller or larger than the existing approved units. The smallest proposed plan at 2,514 square feet is 6.5 percent smaller than the smallest approved unit while the largest proposed plan is 338 square feet smaller than the largest unit with all livable area options selected. Therefore, the new units are in compliance with the size compatibility requirements. The proposed landscaping is similar to existing front yards. The amount of turf area for the new plans will probably have to be smaller than the existing yards due to the current CVWD water efficient requirements, but will still be compatible with existing development. Staff believes there are grounds to approve this request. The recommended Conditions of Approval address the applicable concerns raised during consideration of this request. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC): The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of November 7, 2007, and on a 3-0 vote recommended approval of the request with conditions recommended by staff (Attachment 11)• PUBLIC NOTICE: This application was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on November 16, 2007. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. One letter was received prior to the November 27 hearing and passed out to you at the hearing. FINDINGS: The Findings for approval as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code can be made as noted below. 1. Architectural Design- The architectural design of the new plan types, including, but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with other plans approved for construction in the tract and other surrounding development in the City. Furthermore, the proposed residential units comply with the standards in Section 9.60.300 of the Zoning Code pertaining to compatibility review for partially developed subdivisions, as noted above. 2. Compliance with CEQA- The Planning Department has determined that the request has been assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2001- 417 prepared for Tentative Tract 30092, which was certified by the City Council on July 3, 2001, and there are no changed circumstances or conditions proposed which would trigger the preparation of any subsequent environmental analysis. 3. Site Design- The site design of the project, including, but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle ways, pedestrian amenities, and other site design elements have been established through approval of Tract 30092 and is compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. The Conditions of Approval pertaining to the upgrading of the retention basins ensure that the new homes will not be detrimental to the existing and future residents in the tract. 4. Landscape Design- New home and project landscaping includes, but are not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials will be 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. It will provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, complement the surrounding project area and comply with City and CVWD water efficiency, ensuring efficient water use. 5. Compliance with General Plan- The project is in compliance with the General Plan in that the property to be developed is designated for single-family residences as proposed. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2008-_, approving Site Development Permit 2007-895 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1 . Minutes of the November 27, 2007 Planning Commission meeting 2. Minutes of the December 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting 3. Letter from K. Hovnanian Homes 4. Location map 5. Architectural plans 6. Exterior building color and materials 7. Preliminary plotting plan 8. Preliminary landscape plans 9. Previously approved plans 10. Photographs of existing residences 11. Minutes of the ALRC meeting of November 7, 2007 Transmitted by: 'eaCVA, SAAA-A Stan Sawa, Principal Planner MINUTE MOTION 2008- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-895 K. HOVNANIAN HOMES DATE: JANUARY 22, 2008 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 development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. This approval is for the following model plans: 2. This approval is for the following model plans: Plan 1 -- 2,514+ square feet Plan 2 — 2,782+ square feet Plan 3 — 2,974+ square feet 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for any of the units authorized by this approval, final working drawings shall be approved by the Planning Director. 4. This Site Development Permit is valid for two years, unless an extension is applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code. 5. Site Development Permit 2007-895 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures of EA 2001-417 (Revised), which are incorporated by reference herein for Tract 30092, Amendment #1 . In the event of any conflict(s) between the approved conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Planning Director shall determine precedence. No development permits will be issued until compliance with these conditions has been achieved. 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies or departments, as required: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permits) MINUTE MOTION 2008- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-895 K. HOVNANIAN HOMES DATE: JANUARY 22, 2008 • Planning Department • Building and Safety Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvement plans for City approval. 7. Air conditioning compressors pursuant to Zoning Code requirements cannot be placed in sideyards unless a minimum five foot clearance between compressor and side property line is provided. 8. Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape professional, shall be reviewed by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee and Public Works Director, and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of the first building permit. An application for Final Landscape Plan Check shall be submitted to the Planning Department for final landscape plan review. Said plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project and be in compliance with Chapter 8.13 (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 of the final plans to the Planning Department. 9. Turf for each front yard shall not exceed 50% of the front yard area unless further restricted by CVWD. 10. Replace Prosopis chilensis (Chilean Mesquite) tree with an alternate tree species subject to approval of the Planning Director. 11. Common areas including those areas abutting adjacent perimeter streets shall be properly maintained on a continuing basis including immediate replacement of all dead plants by the developer and shall be so maintained until such time the landscaping responsibilities are turned over to the Homeowners Association. MINUTE MOTION 2008- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-895 K. HOVNANIAN HOMES DATE: JANUARY 22, 2008 The applicant shall retain an arborist to inspect all dormant -appearing trees and submit a report on their condition to the Planning Director. Any trees determined to be dead or in poor health shall be replaced immediately. All dormant common area lawn areas not overseeded shall be immediately overseeded and adequately irrigated to grow. Interiors of retention basins shall be planted in lawn or covered with other material to the satisfaction of the Planning Director upon completion of any revisions. If no revisions are determined to be needed, planting shall be completed prior to issuance of first building permit. The above landscaping requirements, unless otherwise specified, shall be completed prior to issuance of first building permit. 12. The parking lot for the new model home complex shall be at least 100' away from the closest existing residential unit. A Minor Use Permit shall be obtained for the model home complex. 13. The depression area in the street asphalt adjacent to the gutter in the area of 57890 Resideza (Lot 34) shall be repaired prior to issuance of the first building permit. 14. Within 60 days of approval of this Site Development Permit, the applicant/developer shall obtain approval of plans to permanently repair, replace, revise and/or otherwise address the existing non-functioning retention basins to be fully functional, consistent with Engineering Bulletin #06-16 (Criteria for Storm Drain Systems) requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Any required repair, replacement, revision, etc. of the retention basins shall be completed prior to issuance of the 1" production home building permit allowed by approval of this Site Development Permit. Construction of model home units is allowed to proceed prior to approval of basin plans and completion of required work on basins. Non-compliance with all provisions of this condition shall result in issuance of new building permits being stopped until the condition is complied with. ATTACHMENT 1 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2007 mmissioners Barrows/Quill to continue Site Development Permit 2 7-896 to December 11, 2007. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2007-895; a request of K. Hovananian Homes for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three prototypical residential plans for use in Tract 30092 (Piazza Serena) located at the northwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 58. 1 . Chairman Alderson 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 Planning Department. Staff was recommending a condition be added stating, "The developer shall put notice in the sales office and all potential buyers of units in the tract that the Plan 1 unit may have a optional upper floor skydeck." Also, Condition 11 be amended to read, "A plot plan showing the location of all Plan 1 units shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit." 2. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Engle asked for clarification on the letter from Mr' John Gillete. Commissioner Quill clarified he was objecting to the skydeck as he was told there would be no second story units constructed. 3. Commissioner Quill asked what was directly to the west of the tract. Staff stated the Imperial Irrigation District Substation and corporate offices to the north is the Capistrano tract that is under construction. 4. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant was aware of staff's recommendation to changing out the tree variety. Staff stated they were and had no objection. 5. There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. James Crandall, representing K. Hovananian Homes, stated they had no objection to replacing the tree variety. In regard to the condition staff is recommending, they have not seen the revised condition in regard to circulating a letter to the proposed buyers regarding the skydeck. N Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2007 6. Commissioner Quill asked if he had seen the letter from Mr. Gillette and did he understand whether or not there was ever a disclosure made by K. Hovananian regarding there would be no second story units constructed. Mr. Crandall stated he was not aware of any such disclosure. Commissioner Quill asked if there had been any discussions with the tract to the north. Mr. Crandall stated they had not. Commissioner Quill asked if they were aware of the new CVWD water requirements as their plans show a lot of lawn. Mr. Crandall stated he was aware of the new requirements and would be reducing the lawn area as required. 7. Chairman Alderson stated the Commission is very sensitive to second story units that allow views into the backyard of a neighboring unit. It appears that the location of the Plan 1 units will cause this problem. 8. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if on the original conditions were there any conditions stating height maximums or two story homes. Staff stated they did not believe there were any such conditions. 9. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. John Pedalino, representing Desert Elite, stated they are the developers to the north and have four homes in escrow that abut this project and are requesting that no Plan 1 with a skydeck be allowed to be constructed adjacent to their project. 10. Mr. Troy Hefner, 57-850 Resedenza Court, stated his concern is the drainage issues on the existing lots and they have not been able to get any resolution from the contractor regarding the installation of a drywell to resolve this problem. It is currently a swamp and it should be resolved before any new units are constructed. 11, Mr. Mark Yacullo, 81-769 Del Serenata Drive, stated he has the same concern with drainage problem as there is water and mud on the streets now. If new houses are built, it will only increase the problem. 12. Commissioner Quill asked if the streets are muddy and is this from not being cleaned or from the dry well problem. Mr. Yacullo stated the developer has cored through the curbing and the lots 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2007 are now draining into the street causing the muddy streets. Commissioner Quill asked what his opinion was of the entire development. Mr. Yacullo stated his back yard is flooded because of the sprinklers from the perimeter landscaping shoots into his lot. There are several issues of concern regarding the landscaping and they cannot get any resolve from the developer as the developer says the City will not allow him to change it. 13. Mr. Brett Picano, 57-810 Residenza Court, stated he had worked for the sales office at the time the units were being sold and they were never told there would be two story units or skydecks. In regard to Commissioner Quill's question, there is zero maintenance in the community. They do not trim the trees or reseed the lawns. His greatest concern is the skydecks. Additionally, he objects to the model parking lot they intent to construct right behind his home. 14. Commissioner Quill asked if he sold these homes for K. Hovananian, and he gave assurances there would be no second story units or skydecks constructed. He reviewed the lots that were sold during the time he worked there. 15. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if he was given any material from the developer as to whether second story units would be built. Mr. Picano stated they were never told anything from the developer but based on the brochures and materials supplied by K. Hovnanaian, as well as the Plan options they were promoting at that time. They were never given any disclosures or training in regard to selling the units. 16. Mr. John Downs, 81-823 Del Serenata, stated his concern was the retention basin. He was the first person to move in and the water problem has been there since he moved in. It is an eyesore and a health hazard to the community. He is also concerned that the size of the new proposed homes will devalue their homes as they are smaller. Lastly, the size of electrical lines that come into the tract run down the back of his house. These power lines are so strong his neighbor was electrocuted. Palm trees have been planted directly in line of the power lines. The maintenance of the tract is horrible. The sprinkler lines are working off extension cords. He is a member of the HOA and for two years they have fought with the developer and cannot get any cooperation. El Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2007 17. Commissioner Quill asked where the power lines are located. Mr. Downs stated the power lines run along Avenue 58. They were there before the tract was constructed, but were moved after they moved in and in some instances they are in the back yards. Commissioner Quill stated IID normally has a 50-foot prohibition on any trees being planted that would interfere with the power lines. Mr. Downs stated the elevation of the property and the way the property was graded to drain does not work. The dirt is clay and there is no percolation so the water does not drain. 18. Chairman Alderson asked the location of the palm trees. Mr. Downs stated they are around the entire project. They are off -site, but under the power lines. 19. Commissioner Wilkinson asked the location of the retention basin. Mr. Downs stated they are Lot 1 and G. 20. Mr. Troy Hefner stated he was one of the last buyers in this tract last December, and as far as he knows no two story units were ever disclosed. 21. Mr. Mark Yacullo stated he did go to IID and was told the land where the palm trees are located was dedicated to the City. He knows the power lines were moved since they built their pool and have been shocked while in their pools. IID has stated to him it is the responsibility of the City. 22. Commissioner Quill asked legal counsel if IID didn't have to have an easement at least 20 feet from the centerline of the pool. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated IID easements typically allow them to locate the poles within their easements. If they are outside their easements, then there is a problem. Commissioner Quill asked staff to verify where the easement is and the location of the poles and palm trees. 23. Ms. Sherry Brown, 57-768 Cantano Drive, stated her concern is the size of the new models and the impact this will have on their market value in the future. She also agrees with all comments regarding the retention basin and lack of drainage. She asked who the streets belong to as they have blocked off access to the streets with the empty lots and were told they are not allowed to 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2007 walk around neighborhood. 24. Commissioner Quill asked if all the streets are paved. Ms. Brown stated yes, in their section only. Commissioner Quill asked if the street was capped. Ms. Brown stated only in their section. 25. Ms. Amelia Vasquez, 57-770 Resedenza Court, stated she also is a part of the HOA and at every meeting since she moved in they have brought up the concern of the retention basin and have been told every time they will fix the problem. Two years later they still have no answer or resolution to resolve this problem. She would hope the Commission would not approve this tract until these problems are resolved. 26. Mr. Brett Picano stated the streets are capped on all the finished products, but they still have potholes. They repaired the curbs, but they still have left holes in the curbs. 27. Commissioner Quill asked if the streets have been finaled and have the bonds been released for the first phase. Staff stated they were unaware, but will obtain an answer from Public Works Department. Mr. Picano stated they asked the developer about the streets and were told the streets were the responsibility of the City. Commissioner Quill stated the HOA owns the streets and the bonds will cover the repair. 28. Chairman Alderson asked if the developer has representation on the Board. Mr. Vasquez stated they are the majority on the board and they have changed their members three times. 29. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address some of the concerns raised. Mr. Crandall sated they are working with a civil and soils engineer to solve the retention basin problems and will have that answer within the week. Adding a dry well will not solve the problem. In regard to capping the streets, there is no way to cap them where the lots are not finished. The houses that are finished are capped. He is not aware of the power lines or the location of the palm trees, but he will look into at the final map. He is aware of the high turnover on the HOA board due to the market changes, but he is willing to look into all these issues to resolve them. 0 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2007 30. Commissioner Quill stated K. Hovnanian should be ashamed of their actions for letting this tract go this bad and they should be asking for a continuance as he will not support any request at this time. 31. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 32. Commissioner Engle stated the issues raised by the homeowners should be addressed and perhaps a continuance is in order. 33. Commissioner Barrows stated she would like staff to clarify what action the Commission can take in regard to the issues raised. Planning Director Les Johnson stated a continuance would allow staff to look into the issues raised and report back to the Commission on what actions could be taken. 34. Chairman Alderson suggested the next time the applicant comes before the Commission they bring their landscaping, grading and engineering representatives. He would also like to know if the bonds have been released for the streets. 35. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Quill to continue this to December 11, 2007. Unanimously approved. BUSINL$6S ITEMS: None CORRESPNDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. Ch irman Alderson reviewed his letter to staff in regard to dust problems. COMMISSIONER I A. Commission\well d the status of the Golf Cart Ordinance. Staff stated Phaseented and approved by Council, but the second reading of thwas not held to allow striping and signage on the streets, icensing of the golf carts. The second reading should bein nd the improvements done so the Plan could be implementedewed the routes proposed for Phase 1. 7 ATTACHMENT 2 Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2007 A. Site Development Permit 2007-895; a request of K. Hovananian Homes for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three prototypical residential plans for use in Tract 30092 (Piazza Serena) located at the northwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 58. 1. Chairman Alderson 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 Planning Department. Staff reviewed the changes the applicant had agreed to, based on the issues raised at the last meeting. 2. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Wilkinson asked the status of the retention basin. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer explained the applicant has entered into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement that is due to expire on September 3, 2008. If the applicant has not completed all the improvements, the City Council could find the developer in breach of the contract, which could be a very severe problem for the applicant. 3. Commissioner Quill asked if there was a recorded Imperial Irrigation District (IID) easement for the new location of the power lines along Avenue 58. Planning Director Les Johnson stated there is an easement along the western property line that was recorded with the tract that does allow encroachment within that easement which includes the corner crossing. With regard to Avenue 58 in its entirety there is not an easement as the lines are located outside the subject properties. Based on the information provided it shows it to be within the right-of-way with the exception of Lot 52. Staff based this information on the final map. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer added he met with IID's real estate representative and he mentioned what had just been described, but there is a CVWD easement along Avenue 58 and IID has authority to use the CVWD easement. It will take a title report to make the final determination. 4. Commissioner Quill asked if this map was a phased tentative map. Staff stated that in the strictest term based on the Subdivision Map Act it is not, but in La Quinta we do allow builders to build in phases. Commissioner Quill asked if they have a final recorded map approval. Staff stated yes, but the bonds have not been accepted by the City Council. Anything not included in the final 2 Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2007 map must be included in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA). Commissioner Quill stated that in respect to the remainder of this tract, the Commission will be reviewing a new landscaping ordinance, would the new units be required to be subject to the new ordinance? Planning Director Les Johnson stated they would be required to meet the new CVWD requirements. 5. Chairman Alderson clarified the palm trees to be removed are on the south side. Regardless of the phasing, the original 30 homes are approved, but the overall approval of the entire project is still bonded and will be in affect until the project is completed. Planning Director Les Johnson stated the bonding as it relates to the SIA would be in effect until all the improvements, as defined in the SIA, are fulfilled. That could be prior to all the homes being constructed. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer further stated the developer when he completes some of the facilities can ask for a reduction in the bonds in accordance with what he has completed. Chairman Alderson asked if the grades for the entire site were adequate in regard to drainage and the retention basin. Were the grading plans reviewed in the normal procedure? Staff stated the improvement plans would be reviewed and signed by the City Engineer at the time the plans are completed. Planning Director Les Johnson stated that in addition the pad elevations identified through the tentative process would have to be adhered to as they came through the process to complete the map. 6. Commissioner Quill stated that when he was constructing tracts they never had to pull permits for drywells. They would hire a company who would do this. Therefore, he had never relied on the City to tell him how to drain a retention basin. Is there any restriction on this developer, since the drainage systems will be HOA owned? Staff stated it would normally be a part of the SIA and since the City Council has not accepted any on or off site improvements, typically that type of facility would be a part of the SIA. Therefore, the City would have to sign off that it is constructed and operating properly before the HOA would assume responsibility. This is an obligation on the developer to see that this is true. Chairman Quill asked if the developer could build a plan without City approval. Staff stated that since it is part of the Subdivision Agreement it would have to be built in accordance with City standards until the City has accepted the plans. 3 Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2007 7. There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Steve Chaparro, representing K. Hovananian Homes, stated the concerns have been discussed and will be resolved. The second story decks were not in the best interest of the developer and have been deleted from the plans. As to the street maintenance, they have addressed and changed the date to see that the street is maintained and will have a staff member on site every Friday to see that it is maintained. The street capping will be completed in front of all homes that are completed. The retention basins were built and constructed to the City's requirements. They did have City inspectors there on -site during their installation and they do know they are ultimately accountable to see that they are functioning. What they have now is a multi -year contract for a contractor to pump out and clean the sand filter and see that it is being properly maintained. For the last seven days they have been pumping the basin to have a short term resolution. They will have one consultant who is reviewing the design and installation and hope by mid -January to have a plan that will resolve the drainage problems. This will include drainage from the individual homes as well as off -site drainage. The other landscaping issues raised at the last meeting have been identified and they are working to resolve all those issues. In regard to the palm trees, they did intend to take care of the west wall. He was not aware of the trees on the south end. The trees that are there now were approved by the City and IID told them the trees were too tall and they installed the smaller palm trees. They verified with them before the meeting that the trees do meet they specifications. Therefore, they do object to Condition No. 11 and would rather have it subject to IID approval. He asked if the City could extend their Subdivision Agreement if they are working toward meeting their concerns. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer stated the SIA are entered into with the City Council and the only way they can be extended is by way of a letter requesting the extension by the developer and the matter would be brought before the Council for their consideration. 8. Commissioner Quill asked if there was an easement being granted to IID along Avenue 58 by CVWD. Mr. Chaparro stated he is not aware of an actual IID easement. Commissioner Quill stated the curb and gutter goes well past the IID offices on Avenue 58. IID does have substantial mounding creating a lot of run-off and they do not have a catch basin to retain their run-off on the east; does El Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2007 this mean their run-off is to be handled by this tract. Staff stated they were unaware and would need to be research the matter. Commissioner Quill stated normally a project is required to retain 50% on the water on their site out to the crown adjacent and in front of your project unless there is some other condition requiring you to retain water that is upstream of your project. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer stated not entirely. If the property is located in a sump area, a local low area, then they would accept water from other areas. Typically, a tract is required to accept 50% of the street it abuts. Staff will do further research in regard to this issue. Mr. Chaparro stated they are accepting the water run-off from IID and more than 50% from that intersection and it was designed that way. Commissioner Quill stated he did note some improvement in some of the issues raised at the last meeting, but there still remains a significant amount of disregard to the landscaping. Mr. Chaparro stated he has directed his staff to compile a list of all the improvements that need to be done and they will see that it is resolved. Commissioner Quill asked if they have a "White Report" from the Department of Real Estate on the balance of the lots. Mr. Chaparro stated they have White Reports on all lots. Commissioner Quill stated they are therefore paying 100% of the HOA dues for all the lots that are not sold and therefore, there are ample funds to see that the landscaping is completed. Mr. Chaparro stated that is true. 9. Chairman Alderson stated that means there should be ample funds to complete the work. Mr. Chaparro stated his is unable to address the financial standing of the HOA, but there are certain items that are the financial responsibility of the developer to complete before turning it over to the HOA. Chairman Alderson asked about the trees to be removed. Mr. Chaparro stated the palm trees on the west side of the property is what Mr. Crandall understood would be removed. Staff referred to the trees on the south and the removal of the trees on Avenue 58 is what they are objecting. Chairman Alderson asked staff's concern was that the trees on the south side may grow fast enough to be of a concern to IID. Staff stated the trees will mature in height and could be a maintenance issue, but if IID is accepting it, staff does not have a concern. Staff, however, is concerned that the trees are within five feet of the power lines and could be a concern within five to seven years. Mr. Chaparro stated they have had discussions with IID and they have verbally stated they accept the trees as they are and will provide them with written confirmation. 5 Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2007 10. Chairman Alderson stated the basin at the corner is the issue and appears to be an engineering problem that needs to be resolved. Mr. Chaparro introduced Darren Baldwin, Vice President of Land Development, stated the basins are designed as retention/detention basins. The design is adequate if the amount of water going into it is adequate. If you take the amount of water that is in the basin, plus the amount of water that is draining into the basin from the standpipes coming down Avenue 58 will always create the additional water and was not part of the original calculation. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any drainage structures or drywells installed in the basin. Mr. Baldwin stated there are sand filter boxes with a leach.line. There will always be a certain amount of water in the basin as all times. The percolation time is the problem. The leach lines are saturated so the leach lines are half what they should be. Chairman Alderson stated they will be adding 60 houses which will add to the drainage, how is this going to be resolved. Mr. Baldwin stated they have hired consultants to resolve the problem and went on to explain the process that should resolve the problem. 11. Commissioner Quill stated the solution they are working on will solve the problem and if their intent is to do this at both the retention basins, it should solve the problem. 12. Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Brett Picano, 57-810 Residenza Court, stated he appreciates the Commission's efforts to address their landscaping issues. His issue is that they have been trying to get the developer to address this problem since last December. They still have curbs torn up in areas where the street is capped as well as pot holes. His additional concern is the proposed parking lot for the models being constructed behind his home. 13. Mr. Mark Yucollo, 81-769 El Seranada, asked who approved the location of the power poles and the landscaping directly under them. He has spoken with IID staff and have found no one who agrees with putting trees under power poles. Staff stated the landscaping review was approved by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee and Planning Commission in 2004. In regard to how the landscaping plan disagrees with the utility lines, staff is not aware of how it was presented to IID and approved by the City. Staff does believe it is an issue, but it is before the Commission for their determination. C$ Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2007 14. Commissioner Quill stated he believes this is an issue between the HOA and IID. He would like to know if IID does or does not have an easement in this location. He does not believe anyone at IID would approve trees being planted under power lines of this size. Mr. Yucollo stated he constructed his swimming pool to the City's specifications and received his approvals. Subsequently, they have been shocked while using the pool. They have had discussions with IID and inspections have been done by IID, but it is still not resolved. 15. Mr. Jessie Frenza, 57-770 Residenza Court, stated his biggest issue is not only the retention basin, but that there should have been a geotechnical report required at the beginning before the tract was built to have revealed the clay issue and found that they have a saturation problem. Perhaps they as homeowners should be able to review the plans and find a solution. There has been plenty of time to resolve these problems and the developer is just now starting to resolve the problems. 16. Mr. John Gillette, Residenza Court, stated he works for a real estate company and he is ashamed of this tract. He goes through several developments selling units and does not find any of these tracts maintained in this manner. They are well groomed and are beautiful. He is ashamed of the condition of their community. 17. Ms. Amelia Frenza, 57-770 Residenza Court, stated she attends all the HOA meetings and this developer has never tried to solve any of these problems until now. They were told they were trying to resolve some of the issues but it would probably be passed on to the HOA. When the trees reach the height of the power poles, who will have the expense of removing the trees. 18. Commissioner Quill stated that typically the power company will come over and cut the top of the tree off and leave a stump for the HOA to deal with. 19. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 20. Commissioner Barrows suggested Condition No. 12 which addresses the dead plant material being replaced she suggested this condition be enhanced to address some of the issues raised at this meeting. She asked staff if there was a condition that the 7 Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2007 street and retention basin improvements will be completed. Staff stated Condition No. 5, as well as the Subdivision Improvement Agreement requirements will ensure the improvements are completed prior to a final map being approved. 21. Commissioner Wilkinson stated his concerns are with the retention basin and as he understands it their studies will hopefully find a solution. How you address standpipe run-off that has been there for years, should have been considered when the basin was designed. In regard to the IID power lines, is there an easement that addresses the angle where the line crosses the property line. Staff stated there is no definitive easement that shows the angle. In looking at the street improvement plans the lines did exist, but were further to the east and there was some encroachment into this lot. Historically, it appears the line was there, but it is not for certain it was this exact location. Commissioner Wilkinson stated the power lines go directly over the homeowner's pool. It seems there should be a Building Code prohibiting a power line from going over a pool. Staff stated they are unaware of any Building Code, but there are no Zoning Codes that prevent it. 22. Chairman Alderson reopened the public hearing to allow the applicant to answer Commission questions. Mr. Chaparro stated it was their intention to release the drainage water onto the lots. It was draining into the streets and they did inform their staff to stop and pump the water onto the lots to keep it off the street. What they have to do is pump the water so it does not drain into the street. 23. Commissioner Wilkinson stated he was out there late in the afternoon and the water was still running into the street. Mr. Chaparro stated the pumping was stopped, but they were to have crews there to continue with the clean up. Commissioner Wilkinson stated no one was there when he went by at 4:30 p.m. 24. Commissioner Quill stated the study will determine what needs to be done to resolve this drainage problem, but the HOA should not be paying for this. Mr. Chaparro stated K. Hovnanian will be paying for the design and construction as well as the maintenance until such time as it is turned over to the HOA and this will not happen until the City accepts the SIA. j Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2007 25. Chairman Alderson asked who they spoke with at IID. Mr. Chaparro stated they spoke with Carlos Partida, the IID project manager for this project. Chairman Alderson asked if there was any way for the City to monitor negotiations between the developer and IID without the City taking any responsibility of the problem. Staff stated they could attend a meeting, but it is an issue between IID and the HOA. Staff can request a letter of confirmation from IID in regard to the issue. In regard to the landscaping, staff will be following up to see that the conditions are met. 26. Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing and reopened the Commissioner discussion. 27. Commissioner Quill stated the palm trees issue is between the HOA and IID. The retention basins and landscaping are large issues, but to him K. Hovnanian has shown that they are unable to build a product worthy of La Quinta and taking care of the homeowners. If the City does not hold off on this approval until the issues are resolved, this developer cannot be held responsible to resolve the problems at this project. He would like this to be his motion. 28. Commissioner Barrows stated she would be willing to second this motion. 29. Chairman Alderson stated his objection is not as strong. What is before the Commission is the architectural design for the new units. However, the builder has not done what they should have done. Some of these issues are the responsibility of the HOA. There are two key things to be done before he could support the project. One is a letter from IID about the voltage problem and the other is the retention basin. The applicant has stated they should resolve this by mid -January and he does not see how this could be done. They have till September of 2008 which is the time frame for the bonds. He was going to condition this to have the issues resolved before any building permits could be issued, but if they aren't going forward it becomes a mute point; therefore he supports Commissioner Quill's motion. In regard to the architectural and landscaping plans being presented he has no objection. It is a nice project with some problems. E Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2007 30. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Barrows to continue this project to January 22, 2008 to allow the applicant time to address the items listed below: a. The retention basin solution needs to be determined approved, and implemented and subsequent landscaping to the basins. b. The landscaping overhauled including repairs to all dead material as well as new decomposed granite, weeding of the entire area, replacement of all irrigation material, over seeding the existing turf, and replacement of all dead trees and shrubs. C. Some discussion or resolution to the power problem be brought back after a discussion has taken place between IID and K. Hovnanian. d. Some discussion in regard to the existing IID easements with respect to the power lines. e. The entire cost associates with these improvements will not be born by the HOA dues, but by K. Hovnanian. f. Project will be subject to any new landscape or water regulations. Unanimously approved. B. Si e o ment Permit 2007-896; a request of Coachella Valley Rec ation and Park District (CVRPD) for consideration of Phase 1 develo ment plans (Passive Public Park, Trails, and Interpretive Center) for the oral Mountain Discovery Park to be located at the southeast quadrant Jefferson Street and Avenue 58. 1. Chairm Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff rep rt. Principal Planner Stan Sawa explained staff the applicant as requesting a continuance to allow them time to review the . nditions of approval. 2. There being no uestions of staff, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners rrows/Quill to continue Site Development Permit 2007-896 to Jan ary 8, 2008. Unanimously approved. C. Conditional Use Permit 20%7-110; a request of Code Murphy, LLC for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the non -site overnight storage of a blood collection vehicle for the Blood Bank of San Bernardino 10 January 9, 2008 City of La Quinta Attn: Mr. Les Johnson, Planning Director 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 RE: Tract 30092 — Site Development Permit 2007-895 December 11 2007 Planning Commission Hearing and Comments Dear Mr. Johnson, p414 2007 The purpose of this letter is to address the comments which were made by the public as well as those comments made by the Planning Commission members at the December 11, 2007 hearing. The December 11, 2007 hearing was supposed to be a meeting with comments from the public regarding the approval of the above referenced site development permit. However, the meeting turned into a stage for the homeowners of Tract 30092 to conduct a so-called HOA meeting having the Planning Commission as an audience. The comments which were made by the public, as well as the Planning Commission can be bifurcated into two categories: (i) those matters that are related to the internal affairs of the community and those between the developer and the homeowners; and (ii) those matters that are related to the approval of Site Development Permit 2007- 895. Although the Planning Commission is not suppose to deal with the first category, and since the developer could not use the stage to be heard on those, we will use this letter to address those. K. Hovnanian is proud of its communities and is striving to uphold the highest standards when dealing with its homeowners as well with the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over those communities. Therefore, despite the fact that some of the matters raised at the meeting are not directly related to the approval of the above reference permit, K. Hovnanian Communities will nevertheless work with the City as well as with the homeowners to address those matters. However, that process should not serve as the basis for delaying or denying the approval any permits filed by K. Hovnanian Communities. As you may well recall, the concerns of the Planning Commission regarding the basins were discussed during a meeting on December 21, 2007 with the City Engineer, Mr. Tim Jonasson and with the Principal Engineer, Mr. Brian Mckinney. The onsite basin (Lot I) was constructed to collect the flows of daily nuisance water from homeowner and HOA landscape. This basin has been cleaned and is operating at required levels. The basin off of Monroe and 58t' (Lot G) was constructed and conditioned to accept and retain the offsite storm water from the adjacent property and dissipate through natural percolation. This basin was not designed nor is required to accept overflow from existing CVWD irrigation, stand pipes or nuisance water from 58 th street down to Madison. CVWD has been contacted and hopefully we can come to an agreement and solution to fix this problem with one of the three following solutions: I. Expand the perimeter of the basin and extend the leach lines thus allowing a greater capacity, 2. Install a drywell system or, 3. Have CVWD redirect their overflows via an inlet and into their own drain lines. The basins were designed per city standard 370. As stated in a Memorandum on 10/12/98 from the City, dry wells were discouraged because the dry well design failed to percolate the water and cause the chambers to become clogged with mud and other debris. The basins are constructed to drain within 72 hours so there will be some standing water until it has had a chance to percolate which is normal basin activity. Furthermore, the basins have been cleaned and the sand filters are now operating correctly. As far as those concerns that were raised by the homeowners with regard to the palm trees along Ave 58, those are strictly between K. Hovnanian Communities and the Homeowners Association. The trees will require continuous maintenance as would anything else planted in that area and should not be an issue. The irrigation, landscaping and decomposed granite have recently been given much more attention and are being maintained and cleaned properly. We have eliminated and replaced all dead plant material. Irrigation lines have been repaired and will water the plant material more consistently in the HOA maintained areas. The decomposed granite has been repaired around the basin. Streets have been capped appropriately where applicable on streets that are being used and occupied by the homeowners. All costs to re -condition and maintain the basins and landscape areas will be at K. Hovnanian's expense until the HOA can accept it as required by DRE guidelines. Please note however, that if we do not complete the offsite work by the expiration date of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) it is because delays in design review approval by the City which will delay construction and ultimate build -out of the tract and not because of negligence on the part of the developer. During the hearing, it was suggested by city staff that SIA will be extended. The downsizing real estate market has forced us to take a pause in construction and therefore to extend the SIA. We will appreciate if the city staff will address each item contained in this letter in its staff report for the planning commission hearing on January 22, 2008. The application for Site Development Permit 2007-895 is a request for approval of architectural and landscaping design for three new prototypical residential plans. We hope this is taken into consideration at the next Planning Commission Hearing on 1/22/08 when the other tract maintenance issues are being discussed. In addition, I would like to request a meeting with yourself and Commissioner Quill prior to the 1/22/08 Public Hearing to discuss the above matters, as well as those issues we were not given the chance to discuss and /or comment on at the last hearing. I will contact your office to set up a time that is convenient for all parties. Please feel free to call me should you want to discuss any of these issues. Sincerely, C�'z Steve Chaparro Senior Community Manager K. Hovnanian Homes Cc: Stan Sawa, City of La Quinta Tim Jonasson, City Engineer Darren Bolton, VP of Land Development Angela Wilson, VP of Land Planning Jeff Davis, Chief Legal Officer James Crandall, Land Planning Manager ATTACHMENT 4 CASE MAP CASE No. `r SDP 2007-895 SCALE: K. HOVNANIAN NTS ATTACHMENT #11 MINUTES ARCHITECTU & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A Speci I meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78- 95 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA November 7, 2007 / 10:00 a.m. CALL TO ORDER A. This regular meeting of the Architectur and Landscaping Review Committee was calle to order at 10: 8 a.m. by Planning Manager David Sawyer. B. Committee Members pres nt: J on Arnold, Ronald Fitzpatrick, and Bill Bobbitt. C. Staff present: Planning Dir or Les Johnson, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Management sis nt Betty Sawyer. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. CONFIRMATION OF THE/AGENDA: IV. CONSENT A. Staff ask if there were any changes o the Minutes of October 24, 2007. There being no changes, it w s moved and seconded by Com ittee Members Bobbitt/Fitzpatrick ty approve the minutes as V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2006-895; a request of K. Hovnanian Homes for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three prototypical residential plans for use in Tract 30092 (Piazza Serena) located at the northwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 58. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Staff introduced John ' Schuller, Edinger Architects and Steve Shirrel, Landscape Development, who gave a presentation on the project and answered questions. r Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee November 7, 2007 2. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked staff to confirm the location of the additional units in regard to how they relate to the existing tract and if any energy efficient options were being offered. Mr. Schuller explained this was an infill project and they were offering options to allow for outdoor living components. Passive components are being incorporated to the best of their ability. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked why solar panels were not being incorporated into the project. Mr. Crandall, K. Hovnanian Homes, stated they will be using tankless water heaters, but no solar energy options are proposed. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked who determined the front yard turf requirement should be 50%. Staff explained this has been consistent with what the Planning Commission has recently required. Discussion followed as to how the amount of turf is determined. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt suggested that a landscape cloth be used under the decomposed granite (DG) to allow the moisture to go through and keep the DG from sinking into the soil. It will help the yard maintain its appearance longer. In regard to skydecks, they are a great idea, but when you are in a tract it allows you to look down into everyone's yard. It would be nice to lay it out so it does not allow a homeowner to look into their neighbor's yards. Mr. Crandall stated they are limited on where they can place the skydeck units. 4. Committee Member Arnold asked if the rear yard landscaping would be done before the homeowner purchases the home. Mr. Crandall stated it is an option the homebuyer can buy. Committee Member Arnold noted that in the area where there is a sideyard gate, where the trash containers are kept, they should limit the amount of plant material for access. Mr. Shirrell stated this has been an issue to allow pedestrian access to the backyards. 5. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Arnold/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2007-029 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 895, as recommended. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None 1) PH #B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 22, 2008 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-899 APPLICANT: EAST OF MADISON, LLC ARCHITECT: PEARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. (CRAIG PEARSON) LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: LS 2000 INC. (TRACY SMITH) REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION MAILHOUSE AND OFFICE LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 54 AND GARY AVENUE WITHIN THE MADISON CLUB ZONING: GC (GOLF COURSE) SURROUNDING ZONING/ LAND USES: NORTH: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) / RESIDENTIAL LOTS PART OF MADISON CLUB SOUTH: RL WITH EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY / MOBILE HOME AND DATE GROVE EAST: RESIDENTIAL USES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY WEST: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) / RESIDENTIAL LOTS PART OF MADISON CLUB ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Planning Department has determined that Site Development Permit 2007-899 is within Specific Plan 99-035 and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, per Public Resources Code Section 65457 (a). An Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing house 83062922 and 90020727) was certified on November 21, 2000, by the City Council for SP 99-035. No changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. BACKGROUND: The Madison Club is located on the east side of Madison Street, between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54. The Madison Club design was approved by the City Council in 2004 as an Amendment to the Hideaway Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map, with construction of the golf course, streets, and several club buildings and structures completed. The subject property is located behind a CVWD well site that is near the northwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 54 (Attachment 1). The subject site contains the 9,000 square foot golf course maintenance complex, which was completed approximately one year ago. The complex is bordered by Gray Avenue on the west where the maintenance complex entrance is located and Humboldt Boulevard on the north. Across Humboldt Boulevard to the north will be custom single-family residences that are part of the Madison Club. Lot Line Adjustment 2007-484 is presently being processed by the Planning Department for a 10 foot widening of the east side of Gray Avenue, west of the proposed building. PROPOSAL - Proposed is a one story 1,163 square foot building that will function as a homeowner association office and mailhouse for the residents (Attachment 2)• Mail would be delivered by the post office to the mailhouse building and then distributed to the individual homes by Association employees. A small meeting room will accommodate HOA meetings, with two small offices also provided. The facility includes a public parking area on the west portion of the site consisting of 14 spaces with 28 additional maintenance complex employee parking spaces on the eastern portion of the site. The employee parking spaces are separated by a lockable sliding gate which can be closed at night. A second gate is provided near Gray Avenue to close off the public parking area. The existing maintenance building requires 20 parking spaces. The proposed association office/mailhouse requires five parking spaces. The proposed location for this structure is within the western end of the public parking lot area of the maintenance complex. Construction of the building will require removal of two parking spaces on the west end, a portion of the parking aisle and the adjacent planter area. This will leave 40 parking spaces, exceeding the required 25 spaces. The extra spaces are for the club maintenance workers. Construction of the building in this area will not detrimentally affect the use of the parking lot and circulation and leave sufficient landscaped areas. The architectural design and colors of the proposed association office/mailhouse building matches that of the existing maintenance building immediately to the east (Attachment 3). The building will be a flat roof structure with a double parapet. Plant - on columns will be placed on the corners and spaced around the building. Small windows are shown on the north and south sides of the building. Over the south and east facing windows and entry door will be metal awnings. The maximum height of the building will be 14 feet. Exterior wall colors are medium brown plaster, with a slightly darker shade of brown for the trim, awnings, columns, doors and miscellaneous ornamentation. The wall height is approximately six feet tall, and is placed on a low berm. The building pad is slightly lower than the adjacent streets. The landscaping plan shows proposed planting around the building. Planting shown consists of low water use shrubs, vines and ground covers. Except for the groundcover (one gallon) the plants will be five gallons in size. The planting materials are similar to and consistent with those used in the maintenance complex. ANALYSIS: The architectural design of the office/mailhouse building matches that of the adjacent maintenance building. The building is not in an area readily visible to the residents of the community. Additionally, the proposed building is consistent with the existing maintenance building and will likely not be readily visible from Avenue 54 to the south or from within the project. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC); The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of January 2, 2008 and on a 3-0 vote adopted Minute Motion 2008-005 recommending approval of the request, subject to the staff recommended conditions (Attachment 4). FINDINGS - The Findings as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code to approve this request can be made as noted in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2008- , approving Site Development Permit 2007-899, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Architectural and landscaping plans 3. Existing maintenance building elevations 4. ALRC minutes for the meeting of January 2, 2008. Prepared by: 4_*A� Stan Sawa, Principal Planner P:\REPORTS - PC\2008\1-22-08\SDP 2007-899 EAST OF MADISON\PC RPT.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION OFFICE/MAILHOUSE IN THE MADISON CLUB CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-899 APPLICANT: EAST OF MADISON, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22nd day of January 2008, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of East of Madison, LLC to approve the development plans for a Homeowners' Association office/mailhouse in the RL zone district, located within The Madison Club project on the northeast corner of Avenue 54 and Gary Avenue, more particularly described as: A Portion of 767-210-038 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) in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has determined the Site Development Permit is within the area covered by Specific Plan 99-035, Amendment No. 1 and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, per Public Resources Code Section 65457 (a). An Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing house 83062922 and 90020727) was certified on November 21, 2000, by the City Council for Specific Plan 99-035. No changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Department did publish a public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper, on the 1 1 `h day of January, 2008, as prescribed by the Municipal Code, with public hearing notices mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the property in question; and, WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee did on the 2ND day of January, 2008, at a regular meeting, recommended approval of the development plans; 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 find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: P:\reports-pc\2008\1-22-08\sdp 2007-899\pc rpt.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2008- Site Development Permit 2007-899 East of Madison, LLC Adopted: January 22, 2008 1 . The office/mailhouse building is consistent with the General Plan in that it is a related use to a residential country club which is permitted on property designated as Golf Course such as the Madison Club. 2. The office/mailhouse building is designed to comply with City Zoning Code requirements and is in compliance with Specific Plan 99-035, Amendment No. 1 development standards. 3. The architectural design of the office/mailhouse building including, but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements is compatible with the adjacent maintenance building and surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. The building is well designed and will conform with the theme for the project. 4. The site design of the office/mailhouse project including, but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian amenities, screening of roof equipment, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with the adjacent maintenance building and with the quality of site design prevalent in the city. The proposed building is within the maintenance facility site and designed and placed to not be readily visible to other areas of the country club. 5. Project landscaping including, but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, with conditions, has been designed so as to provide relief, complement the off ice/mail house building, 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 to enhance the visual continuity of the project. Planting for this building is primarily in the area immediately surrounding the proposed building and is consistent with existing surrounding planting. 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 Site Development Permit 2007-899 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions, attached hereto; P:\reports-pc\2008\1-22-08\sdp 2007-899\pc rpt.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2008- Site Development Permit 2007-899 East of Madison, LLC Adopted: January 22, 2008 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 22Nc day of January, 2008, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California P:\reports-pc\2008\1-22-08\sdp 2007-899\pc rpt.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-899 EAST OF MADISON, LLC DATE: JANUARY 22, 2008 GENERAL 1 . The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development 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. This Site Development Permit is valid for two years from effective date of approval, unless an extension is applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: Fire Marshal Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Improvement Permit) Planning Department Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Imperial Irrigation District (IID) South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 4. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-899 EAST OF MADISON. LLC DATE: JANUARY 22, 2008 PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas. MODIFICATION TO EXISTING MAINTENANCE FACILITY PARKING LOT and ACCESS POINT 7. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and in particular the following: A. The parking stall and aisle widths and the double hairpin stripe parking stall design. B. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where ADA accessibility is required including accessibility routes between buildings. C. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan to better evaluate ADA accessibility issues. D. Parking stall lengths shall be according to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and be a minimum of 17 feet in length with a 2-foot overhang for standard parking stalls and 18 feet with a 2-foot overhang for handicapped parking stall or as approved by the City Engineer. One van accessible handicapped parking stall is required per 8 handicapped parking stalls. 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. 8. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans)• 9. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-899 EAST OF MADISON, LLC DATE: JANUARY 22, 2008 specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Non -Residential/ Commercial Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 20' Horizontal B. PM10 Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal NOTE: A through B to be submitted concurrently. Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the On -Site Non -Residential/ Commercial Precise Grading Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, an "On -Site Non -Residential/ Commercial Precise Grading" plan is required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official, Planning Director and the City Engineer. "On -Site Non -Residential/ Commercial Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements. 10. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the "Plans, Notes and Design Guidance" section of the Public Works Department at the City website (www.la- quinta.org). Please navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink. 1 1 . The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the mylars of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-899 EAST OF MADISON, LLC DATE: JANUARY 22, 2008 12. Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. The applicant shall employ or retain the Engineer Of Record during the construction phase of the project so that the EOR. can make site visits in support of preparing As Built drawings. However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "As -Built" conditions, the Engineer Of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal. PRECISE GRADING 13. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements). 14. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 15. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with LQMC Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control). All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 16. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus five tenths of a foot (0.51 from the elevations shown on the approved Site Development Permit Site Plan, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-899 EAST OF MADISON, LLC DATE: JANUARY 22, 2008 17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor with applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for the Madison Club development. 18. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of per approved methods contained in Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 — Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. I1TI1 ITIFS 19. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110 (Utilities). 20. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 21. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans). 22. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, and common lots. 23. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, retention and basins, shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 24. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Planning Department and green sheet sign off by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by the Planning Department, the applicant shall obtain PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-899 EAST OF MADISON, LLC DATE: JANUARY 22, 2008 the signatures of CVWD (if required) and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the Planning Director. Where City Engineer approval is not required, the applicant shall submit for a green sheet approval by the Public Works Department. Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of building permit. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the Planning Director 25. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5`h Edition" or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right- of-way. MAINTENANCE 26. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance). 27. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 28. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits). These fees include 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 plan check and permits. 29. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PLANNING DEPARTMENT 30. The final working drawings shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permit. 31. Exterior building wall lighting shall be down -shining with shielded fixtures to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. Any new parking lot lighting shall match that used for the maintenance complex. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-899 EAST OF MADISON, LLC DATE: JANUARY 22, 2008 32. Trash shall be disposed of at the maintenance complex trash enclosures. 33. Lot Line Adjustment 2007-484 for modification of Gray Avenue shall be approved and recorded prior to issuance of building permit for building. Attachment 1 , l ✓ ��� !�� {7�t111111111111111111111�� 11111111 •� CASE MAP 9 1 J CASE Na NORTH SDP 2007-899 . SCALE: EAST OF MADISON, LLC ' NTS 4 ATTACHMENT 4 Excerpt from Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes of January 2, 2008 E. Site Development Permit 2007-899; a request of East of Madison, LLC.for review of architectural and landscape plans for the Homeowners Association mailhouse and office located on the northeast corner of Avenue 54 and Monroe Street within The Madison Club. 1. Planning Manager David Sawyer presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Committee Member Fitzpatrick was disappointed in the architecture of the building. He said it looked like a bunker with a corridor and the plans did not have a cover sheet with an explanation. First he noticed it is a ,rectangular building with only one way in and one way out. There should be a secondary exit somewhere. He added there were several inconsistencies in the plans with regard to the air conditioning system and asked if the building was intended to have air conditioning. 3. Craig Pearson, Pearson Architects, 74-260 Highway 1 1 1, Suite #8, Palm Desert, explained it was a hallway corridor and the occupant load was not more than 10 people. He added the building was to be air conditioned. He explained the air conditioning system had condenser units that were on a split system. 4. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was a certain percentage of natural light required by the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Pearson said this was not a residential building but a commercial building and it was not a requirement. 5. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about a ceiling fan. Mr. Pearson said that would be developed in the final documents. He referred to Section 87.0 where it denotes the components of the ceiling. 6. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the recession of the .windows. Mr. Pearson said the windows were in a two by six wall and there was a canopy for shading. 1 Excerpt from Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes of January 2, 2008 7. Mr. Pearson responded to Committee Member Fitzpatricks comments on the building's architecture. He said the intent was to tie this building in with the approved maintenance building so they appeared to be one compound. They have gates that will separate each of them and will be behind walls where the general public would not see them. 8. Committee Member Fitzpatrick commented on the east elevation and asked if there would be glass in those doors. Mr. Pearson said there would be. 9. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the grading plan. Mr. Pearson said they were all compliant and Building and Safety would do the final review. 10. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the color board. Planning Manager David Sawyer said staff did have the color board but it was unavailable for the meeting. He explained this project would be going to the Planning Commission for approval but would come back to the ALRC for the final landscaping plan approval. He added the Committee only needs to comment on the architecture and not the landscaping at this meeting. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt said he didn't care for the architecture, but he respected the fact it needed to be tied in with the maintenance building. He asked how the homeowners would receive their mail. Staff replied the Post Office would deliver the mail to this building and the Homeowners' Association staff would then separate and deliver it to each residence. The applicant has indicated this plan has the approval of the Post Office. 12. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the meeting room. Jeff Prevost, 80955 Avenue 52, La Quinta, Vice President of the Madison Club, explained the facility would be used primarily for the mail as explained above. The purpose of the conference room was for HOA meetings. They have monthly and annual meetings and the HOA can have meetings in that room. F Excerpt from Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes of January 2, 2008 13. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there were going to be very many people showing up at this building. Mr. Prevost said they would be more administrative -type activities. If there were a large meeting it would be held at the Clubhouse. The other purpose would be for monthly Design Review meetings. 14. Committee Member Bobbitt said he did not care for the design of the building but it would be very functional for a maintenance building. Mr. Prevost said he appreciated the Committees' comments on the design of Madison Club since they are very proud of what they do. He commented the buildings would be screened in and would not have a lot of visual impact on the development. Committee Member Bobbitt agreed since it would be landscaped and would not be seen from the perimeter at all. 15. Committee Member Arnold commented they would not want to include anything that would not look good in this development. Mr. Prevost said it comes down to cost. They are putting their dollars in the highly visible buildings and not the smaller structures such as this one. 16. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Arnold to adopt Minute Motion 2008-005 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2007-899 as recommended. Unanimously approved. 3 BI #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 22, 2008 CASE NO.: FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN 2007-025 APPLICANT: INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES PROPERTY OWNER: INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR WATERMARK VILLAS INTERIOR COMMON AREA AND PERIMETER LANDSCAPING LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH SOUTH EAST: WEST: BACKGROUND NWC OF AVENUE 52 AND JEFFERSON STREET MHDR (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) RMH (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TR 24890 (CITRUS COURSE) AVENUE 52; SILVERROCK RESORT JEFFERSON STREET; VACANT, UN -ENTITLED LAND TR 24890 (CITRUS COURSE) The Watermark Villas, a residential project located on a 21-acre site on the northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street, received specific plan and tentative tract map approvals by City Council on January 6, 2004 and site development permit approval on July 6, 2004 (Specific Plan 2003-069, Tentative Tract Map 31798, Site Development Permit 2004-809) (Attachment 1). The project consists of 250 residential condominiums, a clubhouse, and other resort - related amenities. The final landscaping plans for the project are currently in the plan check process through the Planning Department, although at -risk construction and installation began in early December in order to refurbish the site before the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic golf tournament. Specific Plan Condition of Approval No. 62 requires that the .final landscaping plans be reviewed by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee and approved by Planning Commission. PROJECT OVERVIEW The selected pages of the Watermark Villas final landscaping plans submitted for Planning Commission review encompass all interior and perimeter landscaping for the project, which include planting, lighting, and perimeter wall plans (Attachment 2). Landscaping plans for the future clubhouse site are not included, and will be submitted for review at a later date. The interior landscaping concept centers on the retention of an existing date palm grove and its integration into the site design. The concept identifies most date palms being left in place, while those to be relocated being placed in common areas and around the residential buildings. The plan incorporates the use of citrus trees around the project perimeter areas, particularly at the north and west project boundaries shared with the Citrus Country Club. Other tree species used in the project include African Sumac, Yellow Oleander, California Pepper, and Tipuana trees. Additionally, the interior landscape plan includes open space turf areas for passive recreation and pedestrian walkways lined with accent planting and canopy trees, and a well -varied assortment of vines, shrubs, and groundcover. The perimeter landscaping concept along Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street was also expected to utilize the existing date palms in addition to water -efficient planting, a slumped block perimeter wall, and a meandering concrete path. The Watermark Villas perimeter landscaping was designed to be compatible with the existing perimeter landscaping of the adjacent residential development. ANALYSIS In general, the final landscaping plans for the Watermark Villas are acceptable. The proposed palette of plants, which are taken from the approved plant list in the Specific Plan, provide diversity, while having the characteristics of being functional and low water users. However, in light of circumstances that have transpired since the entitlement approval, staff believes the following recommendations are applicable to Planning Commission review of Final Landscaping Plan 2007-025: Use of Existing Date Palms: The interior landscaping concept was to take advantage of the 530 existing transplantable date palms found at the site, as indicated on the landscaping plans as "Date Palm: existing to remain" and "Date Palm: relocated". However, the majority of the date palms have since been lost due to attrition. The applicant has addressed this issue in a letter dated November 29, 2007 stating that all date palms lost would be replaced, and would therefore result in the landscaping plans being consistent with the approved Specific Plan (Attachment 3). Staff is recommending a condition of approval that requires replacement of the lost palms and identifies a minimum tree size. Impact on Adjacent Property (Citrus Course): Condition of Approval No. 7 of Site Development Permit 2004-809 requires the applicant to incorporate measures outlined in letters from the Citrus Course Homeowners' Association dated December 10, 2003 and June 21, 2004 (Attachment 4). Staff is recommending as a condition of approval that the applicant provide confirmation to staff that these measures have been complied with prior to approval and signature of the final landscaping plan. ALRC ACTION On January 2, 2008, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee reviewed and unanimously recommended acceptance of these final landscaping plans, subject to staff -recommended conditions of approval which have been incorporated into the attached conditions of approval (Attachment 5). Although the plans, which were submitted for review in early 2006, have already been approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and thus are exempt from the recent changes in CVWD water -efficiency standards, staff strongly encourages turf reduction wherever possible, and recommended the ALRC and applicant discuss a possible reduction in turf within the project, particularly in the retention area along Avenue 52 and in the central park area. This discussion resulted in the applicant stating they would collaborate with staff in reducing the use of turf in the retention area along Avenue 52. Staff's initial concern about the turf in the central park has been alleviated as the applicant has stated that the area will be used for passive recreational purposes, which meets the Planning Commission desire for dual purpose uses within turf areas, and is also a major focal point for the main entrance to the project. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Minute Motion 2007- , accepting Final Landscaping Plan 2007-025, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. red by: JAY WUU, Associate Planner 1. Vicinity Map 2. Watermark Villas Final Landscaping Plans 3. Letter from Innovative Communities regarding loss of date palms 4. Letters from Citrus Course Homeowners Association 5. ALRC Minutes for January 2, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE MOTION 2008- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN 2007-025 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES JANUARY 22, 2008 1. The applicant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta, 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 of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel at its sole discretion. The City of La Quinta shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC), including LQMC Chapter 9.210.020. 3. The applicant shall replace all date palm trees denoted on the final landscaping plans as "existing to remain" and "relocated palms" that have been lost with new date palms with brown -bark heights that vary from a minimum of 20 feet to a maximum similar to the heights of the existing trees. Tree heights and placement locations shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. 4. Prior to signature of the final landscaping plans by the Planning Director, the applicant shall submit plans that include all applicable measures identified in the letters from the Citrus Course Homeowners Association dated December 10, 2003 and June 21, 2004. A TTA r%l 1\Ar KIT 4 9 Innovative communities November 29, 2007 Les Johnson Community Development City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Tract No: 31798 — Watermark Villas Landscape Plans Dear Mr. Johnson: A I I AUHMEN I DEC - 4 2007 This letter is to serve as a response to the Community Development Departments (CDD) request which is to have Watermark Granite La Quinta, LLC ("Owner") produce new landscape plans for the Watermark Villas project. This request has been asked of the Owners from the CDD because of the loss of date palm trees that has occurred on the projects site over the last two years_ The Owner does not feel it needs to produce new landscaping plans illustrating the sites existing date palm trees because the current plan already addresses where the new date palm trees need to be installed and the existing trees need to be removed and/or relocated. Per the Specific Plan for the project it states in Section IL Development Plan: "Key to the innovative landscape design for Watermark Villas will be preserving the majority of the existing date palm trees on -site and folding the residential dwellings and other amenities into the old date palm grove." It continues to state under the heading Land Use — Development Standards: The grading concept for Watermark Villas is essentially to preserve the majority of the existing date palm trees in -place and only remove and/or relocate those trees that would conflict with building placement and interior roadway alignment" The Owner acknowledges what is stated in the specific plan. We used good faith during the grading process to minimize the amount of trees that needed to be removed and or/relocated. During the process of removal and replacement, we could not determine nor could our arborist foresee how many of these old date palms would be lost due to attrition. We managed the trees everyday using the recommendations for watering amounts and times that were given to us by the certified arborist. In addition, the Owner is aware that a majority of the date palm trees would be required to be removed and/or relocated because of the conflicts with the building placements and interior roadway alignment. We would like the City to know that the date palm is the signature of.our project's theme and identity. It is in our best interest to preserve as many date palm trees as possible. Our plan is to stay as close to the approved plans as possible in relation to the re -planting of the date palms that have now died and the date palms that will have to be relocated in the future. As always, should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 690- 5261. Cc: Peter A. Bilicki, Jr. / President Dan Dobron / Vice President t y y urs, Ic Brad coon Pr ' t Manager 1282 Pacific Oaks Place " Escondido, CA 92029 " Tel 760-690-5200 • Fax 760-690-5201 - - ATTACHMENT 4 CUTRUS - COURSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION December 10, 2003 Mr. Tom Kirk, Commissioner LaQuinta Planning Commission DCEM' oP.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA91152-1SO4 General Plan Amendment 03-096 Zone Change 03-117 Specific Plan 03-069 Tentative Tract Map 31798 Watermark Villas Dear Mr. Kirk, I am writing in regard to the proposed project located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 known as the Watermark Villas. The Citrus borders the project on its north and west sides and naturally, our community has concerns about the views from not only the homes bordering the proposed development but also from our golf course. Our Architectural Committee has met with the developers representatives and they have generously made the following commitments to screen their two story villas and balconies from view from the Citrus community and golf course: _Landscape: _- _ -- _-- - _ _ - -- - -- . Developer will install rows of palms as indicated on the tentative tract map ap icatiou7131798. Developer will construct a 5' high by 8' wide berm and or planter boxes along the entire northerly and westerly perimeters of the Watermark Villas property and will plant mature citrus trees at no - more than 20' apart. The developer assures us that the foliage of the trees will extend above the 6' high wall as indicated on the attached sketch effectively screening the villas from the Citrus community's view. In addition, planting within the 150' site line corridor on Jefferson and 52!' Avenue to be on a case -by -case basis. There are no buildings in this site line corridor. Developer will provide and plant forty trees on the Citrus side of the 6' wall bordering our communities. The trees are to be 36" box size and will be a mix of variegated Jacaranda trees (20) and variegated (non -thorn type) Mesquite trees (20). In addition, these trees will be installed implementing standard planting methods only, no cranes will be utilized. The Citrus Course BOA will determine the exact location of each tree placement. The Citrus Course HOA will be responsible for irrigating each of the 40 new trees planted on our property and maintenance will be the responsibility of the Citrus Course BOA. Tenni_ s Courts: Developer will insure that tennis court use will be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM and 9.00 PM by including this use time in the CC&R's of the Watermark Association. The developer also agrees that these hours will be strictly enforced. Lights will have an automatic timer switch that will turn off the light when not in use. Extra trees will be planted around the lighted area to prevent glare to the Citrus residents if necessary. Villa ba__ scow°Se' Due to the visibility of these balconies from our community, the developer has agreed that appropriate restrictions will be incorporated into the project's CC&Rs to prevent the use of villa balconies as clothes drying areas, storage areas. and a general repository for tools, grills, toys etc. P.O. Box 4;72 Palm Desert_ CA 922C-i-4772 • 25-550 Aiessandre, Suite Palm Desert, California 4 ��; • r-„„—,ail e. �'Gs-ar.[erne' cc•-:- uww.dtruxoursehoa.eom -6p "4% i lot • FFii %ut7.3 G.�I.E City of La Quints Water Marls villas Project page: 2 We were also pleased to learn that the developer plans to construct a golf cart tunnel under Avenue 52 that would allow residents from both communities access to the proposed Silver Rock Ranch project. . As the only contiguous neighbor of the Project, we request that we have the right to review and "sign ofl" on the inclusion of the above stated provisions, before the City approves their rezoning request. We further request that we be notified when detailed plans and specifications have been submitted to the City for - - approval, so we may have the opportunity to review these documents and make comments as part of the City,s approval process - If the City of La Quints makes the above commitments a condition of ' Approval, then the Citrus Course HOA will support the development of the Watermark V illas, If you have any questions regarding our concerns, please call me at (760) 771-6835- Yours truly, Tom Morton, president Board of Directors Citrus Course Homeowners Association top cc CCHOA Board of Directors T. H. Gallaudet Ill, Chair, CCHOA Architectural Committee Tom Miller, CCAM, Community Association Manager Desert Resort Management MatthewHladek, Watermark Villas �r CITRUS COURSE. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION June 21. 2005 City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 ATTN _ Wally Nesbit Subject: June 22, 2004 Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Site Development Permit 2004-809—Watermark Villa L. Q. LLC, Development of Lot 47 of TR 24889 Dear Planning Commission Members: The Citrus Course Homeowners Association (CCHOA) offers the following additional comments pertaining to the proposed development of the Watermark villa project. We understand that the developer is agreeable to making the changes as noted. Preliminary Landscape Plan 1) The 85 Citrus trees that are to be installed along the back of the development to shield the development from the Citrus are 24" box. These are very small rees and will take many years to mature. We believe they should be at least a 36" box size and should be so noted on the final Landscape plan. 2) It is our understanding from the developer that the Citrus trees are to be planted on mounded turf. We understood that the mounding was to be at about six feet high. There is no mounding shown on the preliminary landscape plan. This should be corrected on the final approved plan. 3) The developer plans to move and replant most of the existing date palms. The plan shows a significant number of these palms are to be located in the required flood plain area near the Ave 52 side of the development. We would like to see more of these palms located behind the development in areas fronting the Citrus. We will be happy to work with the developer to mark appropriate locations on the preliminary plan. The following comments pertain to the developer's selection of trees and plant material to be planted within the development. We are not requesting changes, but are offering these comments based on our experiences in dealing with tree and plant selections used within the Citrus_ P.O. Box 12920 Palm Desert, CA 92255 • 75061 Mediterranean, Suite B, Palm Desert, California 760.346.9000 • FAX 760,346.9997 • wwweitmscoursehoa.com 1) Fifty-seven California Pepper trees are noted on the preliminary landscape plan. We suggest substituting Brazilian Peppers for the California Pepper trees, which need protection in windy areas and are very prone to breaking, blowing down, and non -uniform growth patterns. They have been a continual maintenance problem for us and we are phasing them out. 2) The Tipuana Tipu trees are deciduous/semi-evergreen and may not leaf out during the winter months. They also do not do well in the alkaline soils, which are characteristic of the desert. 3) The Bird of Paradise plants require shade and burn easily when exposed to the sun. Elevation Drawings 1) The elevation drawings do not show any detail on window tinting. Taking artistic liberties in the drawings, we suspect by the architect, they appear to be blue. We would oppose a blue, green, etc. tinting and urge that tinting be limited to gray or bronze, as used in homes at the Citrus. We understand the developer is agreeable to our tint preference. Tree Planting in the Citrus to Shield the Development The developer has orally agreed to plant forty 36" box trees along Citrus Street, within the Citrus community, to help shield the Watermark development from view. We would like this understanding to be specified by the City as a requirement and not as an "exclusive arrangement" between the CCHOA and the Watermark developer. Additionally, we are requesting that the City require the developer to stake, with 10 foot poles, the outer edges of the footprint of the 12 condo units and one tennis court that front the Citrus community. Having these poles will enable the CCHOA to specify exactly where the new trees within the Citrus are to be planted. We thank the Planning Commission for the opportunity to submit these written comments as part of the hearing record. Yours i Thomas Morton, Presi� Board of Directors The Citrus Course Homeowners Association ATTACHMENT #5 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 B. Final Landscaping Plans 2007-025; a request of Innovative Communities for review of Final Landscaping Plans for Watermark Villas interior common area and perimeter landscaping located at the northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. 1 . Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Staff introduced Brad Fomon, with Innovative Communities who gave a presentation on the project and requested the California Pepper Trees and retention basin turf remain as they had already been installed. 3. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the retention basins and the plantings surrounding them. Mr. Fomon described how they had changed the landscaping plans to accommodate the trees currently planted. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt commented on the loss of all the palms previously on site. He did like the initial project presentation done several years ago and asked if the project was going ahead Mr. Fomon replied they were going ahead with the project. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if Innovative was going to go ahead with building more units. Mr. Fomon replied they are currently working on their models and the remainder of the units would be built as the economic climate allowed. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt commented on the California Pepper Trees (Schinus Molle) and stated the Commission usually does not recommend use of these trees due to the high attrition rate. However, he did not have a problem with leaving those planted where they were, and suggested no more be added. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he had a problem with the screening on the north (Citrus) side and its effects on the residents. Mr. Fomon said there would be no serious effects as they were working to resolve their issues with the Citrus residents. He clarified they hoped to solve the problem with the the trees by installing 40-inch planter boxes with holes at the bottom so the tree roots could grow into the ground for 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 screening. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there would be mounding around these boxes. Mr. Fomon replied in some cases there would be a small amount of mounding with the planter boxes sitting on top to protect the neighbor's view. This would make them look more integrated into the project 8. Committee Member Fitzpatrick commented on how well put together the exhibit packet was and how easy to follow. He then asked how the 50% turf reduction was determined. Mr. Fomon said he was unfamiliar with the new requirements as the project was approved prior to their implementation. He said they were amenable to reducing the turf area, but would like to retain the lushness of the entrance area. 9. Committee Member Fitzpatrick referenced the 50% reduction and wanted to know what that amount was based on. Mr. Fomon suggested staff address the comment. Associate Planner Jay Wuu said there was no actual percentage stated but the recommendation was for the applicant to discuss possible turf reduction with the Committee. Staff said the applicant appeared to be willing to reduce the turf except for the entrance area. Mr. Fomon noted the areas where turf would be reduced on the exhibit. 10. Planning Director Les Johnson stated the key issue was the project was approved under the old CVWD requirements. Staff was encouraged that the developer was willing to make changes even when they do not have to. The key provision, for staff, is useable and functional turf should remain. There really isn't much of a benefit to turfing retention areas. He added the City respects their interest in keeping down the turf areas. 11. Mr. Fomon pointed out which turf areas must remain. Planning Director Les Johnson said turf reduction was identified as a discussion item rather than a condition. The landscaping was conditioned to receive ALRC as well as the Planning Commission approval. Therefore, the ALRC could recommend conditions to the Planning Commission requiring the applicant to work with staff on reducing turf where feasible. 12. Planning Director Les Johnson said the percentage wasn't as important as the direction the applicant was going. The reduction of turf in the retention areas would be the most rl Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 beneficial but they would have to look at the overall turf useage as well as function and aesthetics. 13. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the applicant is requesting approval of his landscaping plans, but it is up to the applicant to reduce the turf. He did not want to put a mandate on the applicant to follow the new regulations. 14. Planning Director Les Johnson said even prior to the new CVWD Ordinance, the approach of the Commission has been fairly strong on reduction of turf unless it is areas that are of functional value and purpose. The central area has a functional value and purpose. 15. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was a number, that represented 30% of the project should be turf. 16. Committee Member Arnold said there was a printed formulation which the Committee had previously received and it was probably about 30% or 20% of the overall site area. Planning Director Les Johnson said CVWD's new regulation mandate a limit, but there wasn't one when this project was originally presented. 17. Planning Director Les Johnson said staff was supportive of retaining the landscaping in the areas which were functional as well as an aesthetic focus. Staff would concur with what has been brought forth by the applicant and that consideration be given to reducing turf in the retention areas and maintaining turf in areas where there is a purpose for the resident's use. 18. Committee Member Arnold asked what type of mulch was being used. The applicant explained the original plans and what was now being considered including use of some on -site materials. 19. Committee Member Bobbitt commented on the Queen Palms and the problems currently in the Valley and suggested the applicant consider another variety. The applicant agreed not to use that type of Palm. 20. Committee Member Fitzpatrick commented on the letters from the Homeowners' Association and asked if the applicant was going to resolve those issues. Mr. Fomon said they were 5 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 working with the Citrus HOA and has met with all their Board Members on site to discuss solutions. A formal letter should be submitted by the HOA when the project is presented to the Planning Commission stating what had been resolved. 21. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was any need for color boards, architectural details and anything of that sort. The applicant replied they had already been through that. 22. Committee Member Bobbitt had a concern about the height of the date palms being used in a landscaped area, due to crown drop. He suggested nursery grown date palms from 15 to 20 feet. Taller trees may not fully recover from transplanting. Mr. Fomon said they were trying to vary the heights of the trees and wanted the opportunity to have 40 footers to be more consistent with the project. Committee Member Bobbitt suggested they either have their landscape architect or a certified arborist select the trees being brought in from outside. He very strongly suggested they inspect the trees already transplanted. He said it was not a good idea to buy trees left over from a non -operational date grove. 23. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2008-002 recommending approval of Final Landscaping Plans 2007-025as recommended and amended: a. Condition added: Any new trees shall be of equal height to the existing trees b. Condition added: Turf shall be modified as agreed upon by staff and applicant. Unanimously approved. C. Final Landscaping Plans 2007-026; a request of Trans West Housing for a review of final landscaping plans for portions of the Griffin Ranch interior common areas, including the clubhouse perimeter and mail building located at the southeast corner of Avenue 54 and Madison Street. 1. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Staff introduced Michael Horton who gave a presentation on the project and answered questions. ■