Loading...
1991 10 02 DRBWily r Ya 2afonla REVIEW BOARD A G E N D A A Regular Meeting to be held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California October 2, 1991 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes of September 4, 1991 IV. BUSINESS SESSION A. TRACT 23269; a request of Century Homes for approval of architectural elevations for four units types. B. PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-009; a request of La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church for approval of a expansion of an existing church with associated parking in the SR zone. C. Plot Plan 91-466 - Simon Plaza; a request of Simon Plaza, Inc. for approval of a commercial center. D. Plot Plan 91-467; a request of Desert Villas, Inc. for approval of a proposed single story apartment complex. E. SIGN APPLICATION 91-153 (TENTATIVE TRACT 26769) - THE ESTATES; a request of Qualico Development Company for approval of a permanent subdivision sign. F. SIGN APPLICATION 91-149; a request of Mobil Oil Corporation for approval of landscaping plans for remodeling of existing service station. V. OTHER A. Street Name Signs for the Village; consideration of street name signs for the Village Specific Plan area. VI. ADJOURNMENT 001 DESIGN REVIEW BOAIY D CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California September 4, 1991 I. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. A. Vice Chairman Llewellyn brought the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. and Boardmember Harbison led the flag salute. Vice Chairman Llewllyn asked for a roll call. II. ROLL CALL A. Present: Boardmembers David Harbison, John Walling, John Curtis, Planning Commission Representative Ladner, and Vice Chairman Llewellyn. B. Boardmember Walling moved and Boardmember Curtis seconded the motion to excuse Boardmembers Rice and Anderson. Unanimously approved. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Boardmember Curtis moved and Boardmember Harbison seconded the motion to approve the Minutes of August 7, 1991 as submitted. Unanimously approved. IV. BUSINESS SESSION A. Tentative Tract 23935 - Topaz; a request of GWR Development for on review of a proposed add itial unit. DRBMIN-9/4 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Boardmember Llewelly asked Staff if the trellis on the west side will create a problem with the setback requirement. Staff stated that was unknown, it would have to be determined on a per unit basis. 3. Boardmember Harbison inquired if Staff had any suggestions on how to eliminate the sun exposure on the sliding doors. 1 002 Design Review Board Minutes September 4, 1991 4. Discussion followed between the members :regarding the use of shade trees, trellis applications and front -yard landscaping. 5. Due to the fact the Applicant was not present to answer the Board's questions, it was moved by Boardmember Walling and seconded by Boardmember Curtis to continue the matter to the next meeting to give the Applicant an opportunity to respond. Unanimously approved. B. Tract 23269 - La Qu i Highlands; a request of Williams Development Company for approval of architectural elevations for Unit #5. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Marty Williams Butler, Williams Development Company, addressed the Board regarding their request. 3. Boardmember Harbison stated he approved of the tract designs and felt there was a wide variation of style. 4. Vice Chairman Llewellyn asked Staff if there was any problem with window tinting. Staff stated there was not. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Walling and seconded by Boardmember Curtis to adopt Minute Motion 91-022 recommending approval to the Planning Commission of architectural elevations for Unit #5 for Tract 23269. Unanimously approved. C. Tentative Tract 24517 & Tentative Tract 25290 - Rancho Ocotillo; a request of Williams Development Company for approval of a proposed additional unit. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Marty Williams Butler, Williams Development Company, addressed the Board regarding their request. 3. Boardmember Curtis inquired how the Applicant felt about shading on the left elevation. Discussion followed between Staff and the Applicant as to which units would. require the shading. 4. Boardmember Walling asked if the Applicant intended to landscaping the street side only. Ms. Butler stated yes. DRBMIN-9/4 2 003 Design Review Board Minutes September 4, 1991 Discussion followed as to how much western sun exposure there would be to the units with nooks on that side of the house. Ms. Butler stated they would see that no houses with nooks would receive the western sun exposure. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Curtis and seconded by Boardmember Harbison to adopt Minute Motion 91-023 recommending to the Planning Commission approval of the additional unit design for Tentative Tracts 24517 & 25290. Unanimously approved. D. Sign Application 91-151; a request of Shell Oil Company for approval of AS monument and identification signs. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Boardmember Walling inquired of Staff if their recommendation is to elimination of the spandrells. Staff stated that was their recommendation. Discussion followed as to the lighting of the canopy and the canopy colorband. 3. Mr. Dave Prest, Architect for the Applicant, spoke on behalf of the project. He stated the spandrell was a needed architectural feature and that the colorband had been approved in the original plot plan review. 4. Mr. Don Adolf, Applicant, spoke regarding the pricing signs meeting State requirements which are in conflict with the City's standards. 5. Boardmember Walling stated he felt the spandrell should be retained but not lighted, and the colorband on the gas canopy was appropriate. 6. Following discussion regarding the spandralls, Boardmember Llewellyn moved and Boardmember Curtis seconded the motion to adopt Minute Motion 91-024 recommending approval of Sign Application 91-151 to the Planning Commission subject to Staff recommendations and with the addition that the spandrells over the gas islands not be lighted. The colorband on the gas canopy was acceptable. Unanimously approved. E. Tract 26769 - Qualico Development; a request of Qualico Development for approval of preliminary landscaping plans. DRBMIN-9/4 004 Design Review Board Minutes September 4, 1991 Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Boardmember Curtis asked Staff to explain the retention basin required by the Engineering Department. 3. Mr. Greg Shannon, spoke on behalf of the Applicant and indicated they wished to install the sidewalk now. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Harbison and seconded by Boardmember Walling to adopt Minute Motion 91-025 recommending to the Planning Commission approval of the preliminary landscaping plans subject to the Staff recommendations. Unanimously approved. F. General Plan Amendment 91-037 Change of Zone 91-065 and Plot Plan 91-465; a request of Desert Hospital to permit a three story medical/office complex on the west side of Washington Street at Via Marquessa. DRBMIN-9/4 Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Boardmember Curtis inquired if Staff had required a noise study in relation to the heli-pad. Staff stated that the heli-pad was not part of the first phase because a noise study was not prepared by the Applicant. 3. Mr. Peter Bergman, Desert Hospital, addressed the Board and explained the reason Desert Hospital wanted to come to La Quinta. Mr. Phil Taylor, Mediplex Building Corporation, spoke on behalf of the Applicant and explained the master plan layout project. Boardmember Walling asked the Applicant what type of air conditioning units would be used. Mr. Taylor stated that the units used for the surgery rooms is regulated by the State, but the remainder of the building would probably be a direct expansion type system and would be screened. Discussion followed as to rooftop boilers and if on -site laundry facilities would be provided. An on -site laundry was not proposed. Boardmember Curtis inquired if landscaping would be provided for the future building areas. Mr. Taylor stated it depended on how soon the area would be developed. The entire site would be seeded to prevent erosion and sand pollution. 003 Design Review Board Minutes September 4, 1991 7. Boardmember Curtis asked if Phase I would have emergency services. Mr. Taylor stated there would be no emergency services provided, but urgent care would be. Mr. Bergman stated that in Phase II with the urgent care there may be plans for a heli-pad. 8. Mr. Jeff Sobczyk, spoke on behalf of the Applicant in regards to the elevations of the project in relation to the surrounding projects. 9. Discussion followed in regards to the circulation plans. 10. Boardmember Walling stated he felt large trees should be utilized to soften the large mass of the building. 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Harbison and seconded by Boardmember Walling to adopt Minute Motion 91-026 recommending approval to the Planning Commission of the architectural elevations for Plot Plan 91-465. Unanimously approved. G. Sign Application 91-152; a request of TS Restaurants for approval of a monument and directional signs. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Mr. Sandy Saxten, Applicant, spoke on behalf of the project and stated he wanted to keep his original design for the sign(s) rather than use the designs as prepared by Staff. DRBMIN-9/4 Boardmember Curtis stated he approved of the sign design as prepared by the Applicant, but inquired as to whether the material would last in the desert heat. He also stated his objection to the "Circa 1920" being placed on the sign and asked whether the sign would be lighted. He felt the "Circa 1920" was misleading. Discussion followed regarding the date on the sign. It was a general consensus of the members that the date should be removed. Boardmember Walling inquired why the Applicant did not want exposure for the sign for those traveling westbound. Mr. Saxten stated that the mountain prohibited the amount of exposure they would want for the sign and they felt that any westbound traffic would be able to see the restaurant. 006 Design Review Board Minutes September 4, 1991 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Walling and seconded by Boardmember Curtis to adopt Minute Motion 91-027 recommending approval to the Planning Commission of Sign Application 91-152 with the elimination of the "Circa 1920" from the sign and with the original design submitted by the Applicant. Unanimously approved. H. Plot Plan 89-417 Amendment #1; a request of TS Restaurants for approval of landscaping plans. DRBMIN-9/4 1 . Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Discussion followed between the Boardmembers and Staff regarding the need for additional trees for shading in the parking lot. 3. Ms. Karen Shaw, Landscape Architect for the Applicant, addressed the Board regarding the plans. She requested that the Board not require an irrigation plan until all water treatments had been completed. She stated the system would be drip. 4. Following discussion it was moved by Boardmember Harbison and seconded by Boardmember Llewellyn to adopt Minute Motion 91- 028 recommending approval to the Planning Commission of Plot Plan 89-417, Amendment #1 landscaping plans subject to Staff recommendations and that any major changes would come before the Board for approval. Unanimously approved. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis addressed the Commission and stated that Mr. Cunningham of Tentative Tract 23935 - Topaz had arrived late and asked if the Board would reorganize the Agenda and review his application at this time. Boardmember Harbison moved and Boardmember Walling seconded a motion to reorganize the Agenda and hear the application at this time. Boardmember Harbison asked the Applicant to address the Board regarding the trellis work. Following discussion regarding the trellis work, Boardmember Harbison moved and Boardmember Walling seconded the motion to adopt ]Minute Motion 91-029 recommending to the Planning Commission approval of Tentative Tract 23935 subject to Staff recommendations. Unanimously approved. " 007 Design Review Board Minutes September 4, 1991 V. OTHER Vice Chairman Llewllyn suggested that the discussion of street name signs be continued until the entire Board was present. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Boardmember Walling and seconded by Boardmember Curtis to adjourn to a regular meeting of the Design Review Board on October 2, 1991, at 5 :30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 7:50 P.M., September 4, 1991. DRBMIN-9/4 - 009 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD �1 STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 2, 1991 PROJECT: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS FOR FOUR UNITS TO TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON 76 LOTS IN TRACT 23269 APPLICANT: CENTURY HOMES LOCATION: LA QUINTA HIGHLANDS, LOTS 79-94, 96-148, 245-251, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ADAMS STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE. THESE LOTS ARE LOCATED ON LAS VISTAS DRIVE, SANITA DRIVE, AROSA WAY AND LA PALMA DRIVE. BACKGROUND: 1. Tract 23269 totaling 255 lots has been developed by a number of developers including Triad (original subdivider of whole tract) La Quinta Vistas and Williams Company. 2. Century Homes has now purchased 76 lots and proposes four different housing units. 1n11 tar _ This table describes the four proposed units: PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 3 PLAN 4 # Sq. Footage Unit 1006 1262 1400 1567 # Sq. Ft. Bonus Area 205 0 206 165 # Sq. Footage Garage 591 410 608 556 # Stories 1 1 1 2 # Different 3 3 3 3 Elevations # Bedrooms 2 3 3 3 # Bathrooms 1 2 2 3 # Family Rooms 0 1 1 1 # Car Garages 2 2 2 2 The applicant has proposed seven different color scheme combinations using two different roof tile colors, red/brown with a splatter of grey and brown with a splatter of golden yellow. Five different alternate colors (brown, beige & off-white) have been proposed for facia and garage doors. DRB10/2.F3/CS -1- 009 Seven alternate stucco colors are also shown (all desert shades). Seven accent colors for shutters, muted greens, blues and browns have also been indicated. The Spanish/Contemporary architectural style used, is similar to that used for the surrounding tracts. STAFF COMMENTS• 1. Front elevations are attractive and well proportioned 2. Side and rear elevations need to show more architectural detail, for example popouts around windows and attic vents (the latter particularly on right side elevation Unit #4). 3. Shutters have been shown on the color board but not included on the architectural plans. This item requires clarification from the applicant. 4. Some sort of additional shading needs to be provided on the sides and rear of the buildings. REAR: Increase overhang, in most cases the additional overhang for central window can be extended across the whole of the rear side. SIDE: Provide projections above windows, tainting or shutters. UPPER FLOORS, TWO STORY HOMES: Introduce a hip roof rather than a gable roof so overhangs can be provided on the sides of the building. 5. All units are 44 to 47 feet wide and therefore will fit on the smallest lots provided (60 feet wide). 6. There are no restrictions on two story units on the proposed lots. 7. The color scheme proposed includes desert colors including muted greens and blues for the shutters. A third roof tile could be provided. Review the plans in conjunction with Staff comments and determine if they are acceptable or if revisions are needed. Attachment: 1. Locality Plan 2. Tract Map 3. Architectural Plans & Elevations Full scale architectural plans attached. -z- 019 ATTACHMENT No, i TR 23269 W ® sommusesomm tog a 0 uEES AVENUE A 3 LOCATION MAP INDIO `NORT Oil 4- h — — 9' h CN A 144 { �9 N NP 6 lF6�s/ ti c1 N. o�j �699f1 O/✓4 'O/V INN 4 6YZE](,6E 1-79.9 Yzf/> C ' O/V C•ca s��z]Cp�aa9z> z� �v�z 0.12 nl U FM STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DATE: OCTOBER 2, 1991 PROJECT: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 & VARIANCE 91-018 REQUEST: EXPANSION OF CHURCH WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING IN THE S-R ZONE. APPLICANT: LA QUINTA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP CHURCH; PASTOR MARK COLLINS ARCHITECT: JOHN BUND LOCATION: 53-800 CALLE PALOMA, DESERT CLUB TRACT, UNIT #15 (LOTS 65 & 66) BACKGROUND- 1. This project is surrounded by Desert Club Tract Unit #4, a residential area which has been in existence for many years. About half of the surrounding lots have been developed. The existing church was constructed prior to city incorporation. 2. A Public Use Permit (PUP) allows a church to be located in a residential area. The PUP will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting of October 22, 1991. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1. An existing church building (1,404 square feet) is presently located on the site. The applicant has proposed a new church building to seat +100 people. 2. The proposed church is rectangular in shape with the entry vestibule facing Calle Paloma. The building has gable roof and either tiles or concrete shingles will be utilized as roofing materials. Large window type features have been placed on either side of the main entry door. Architectural detailing has been provided at the corners of the building. 3. The building is +23 feet high, higher than the 17 feet allowed in this zone. The applicant is submitting a Variance Application requesting a higher height limit. 4. The Parking Regulations state that a masonry wall is required around all nonresidential uses in a residential area. The applicant has also filed a variance request to postpone the construction of a masonry wall on the south side of the property. DRB10/2.F5/CS -1- 013 5. Air conditioning units will be enclosed and located at the rear of the building. 6. Desert color scheme has been proposed for this project. 7. The future sign will be approved at a later date. 8. Some of the parking is already existing and does not comply with the existing parking regulations (see landscaping plan requirement below). STAFF COMMENTS. 1. A landscaping plan will be required to be submitted and approved by the Design Review Board. Landscaping of the parking lot and other parking details can be determined at that stage. 2. The circular driveway parking arrangement is satisfactory. 3. The architectural design of the church is modest and has sufficient detailing on the front and side elevations. Some architectural detailing could be added or landscaping suitably located to add interest to the rear elevation. 4. The window shape along the side elevations of the new church corresponds with the windows of the existing church. 5. On the existing church, which will be used for a shcool and meeting, there is an unscreened air conditioning unit on the roof and in one wall. These should be screened with materials architecturally compatible with the building. 6. The existing church is plain and lacks compatibility with the new church. However, the window popouts and corner treatments could be added to the existing building. Additionally, the two buildings should be the same color. RECOMMENDATION: Review the project in conjunction with Staff comments and determine if the proposal is acceptable or if revisions are needed. Attachments: 1. Locality Plan 2. Site Plan 3. Elevations and Floor Plan Full size architectural plans are attached. J 014 DRB10/2.F5/CS -2- C=e wJ tiA1YJ *-I vuoPd oleO 000-M I F &ISM07I3J NVUSW10 VINbIO VI d a JJ �e�•s�eWWYw +rws�• �yl�w Cale o-�� I a d s Of5 owe oa o oN*I VLuqoa "so 006-M M a o o d ))A(- ==-�/� OIfIJ1�1�� I\YLLJIOfN 1LVIN - 1 WN4a ,ApMr• 16 of 7 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 2, 1991 PROJECT: PLOT PLAN 91-466 REQUEST: TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL CENTER WHICH MAY INCLUDE A RESTAURANT/BANK, BOWLING ALLEY (40 LANES), MULTIPLE STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS, A FOUR STORY PARKING STRUCTURE WITH ONE SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL, AND OTHER RELATED STRUCTURES. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON +5 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY ill. APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC.; PHILIP M. PEAD, PRESIDENT ARCHITECT: MERLIN J. BARTH OWNER: 3S PARTNERSHIP & POMONA FIRST FEDERAL EXISTING ZONING: CPS SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE: NORTH: CPS Commercial; Vacant (future One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center) SOUTH: CPS Commercial; Vacant (future Washington Square Commercial Center) EAST: CPS Commercial; Existing Simon Motors WEST: CPS Commercial; Existing Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The proposed +5 acre site is comprised of six parcels. The flat and undeveloped parcels were created by the division of land under Parcel Map 18418 in 1982. The property has frontage on 3 streets with 650 feet along Washington Street, 700 feet along Highway ill, and 180 feet along Simon Drive. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level. 018 DRB10/2.F2/CS -1- The site is improved with street improvements. However, additional widening is necessary on Washington Street to conform with the City's adopted Specific Plan Alignment program. A future raised median island is proposed for both Washington Street and Highway 111. BACKGROUND: The property was subdivided in the early 1980's for the development of Simon Motors Automotive Dealership as well as to establish commercial lots which could be sold or developed with commercial land uses. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: One story 8,000 square foot restaurant/bank (Washington/Highway 111). Two story (plus basement) 60,500 square foot office building (Washington). Four story 35,000 square foot office building (Washington). One story 5,000 square foot restaurant, one story 37,240 square foot Bowling Alley, two & three story 18,150 square feet office building (Highway 111) and two story 12,000 square foot fitness center. Total = +165,000 square feet ARCHITECTURE: The project architect, Mr. Merlin J. Barth, of Anaheim, has prepared a plan which proposes buildings around the outer portion of the site with parking in the center of the facility. A parking structure will be located on the east side of the property. The proposed Mediterranean design (Spanish style design motif) is consistent with the City's design guidelines (e.g. the roof, rough stucco exterior, large glass windows, etc.). CIRCULATION/PARKING: The developer has proposed access driveways on each respective public street. The two-way driveway on Highway 111 and Washington Street will service the proposed courtyard guest parking lot (approximately 88 parking spaces). The driveways lead to the five story parking garage (four floors above grade with one subterranean level) located at the southeast corner of the site. The parking garage will house approximately 576 cars. The parking ratio for this project is (165,000/669) one on -site space for every 250 square feet of leasable floor area. DRB10/2.F2/CS -2- 1 J 019 The developer is preparing a traffic study to address the developmental impacts of the project on abutting City streets, and the cumulative impacts the project may have on the future level of service of Washington Street/Highway 111. VIEW CORRIDOR: The City's General Plan discusses site views as an important element of projects which have frontage on major streets within the City. The policy states that no building greater than one story in height shall be built within 150 feet of the future street property line. This standard has been in effect for the last few years and has been a condition on all of the development cases along Washington Street. The attached plan does not meet this provision, and the developer has requested a waiver from the policy. A letter for Best, Best and Krieger is attached. Staff has reviewed the letter from Mr. Paul T. Selzer of Best, Best & Krieger, and we recognize their request. However, staff is of the opinion that the project should meet the provisions of the General Plan (even though it is only a policy statement). This document is the City's long range plan to City growth and development. Further deviations from this provision will only lead to additional erosion of the Washington Street Specific Plan. This will be addressed further with the Planning Commission once the case has been forwarded to them for consideration. It is appropriate that the Design Review Board comment on this issue. Your comments will be reviewed by the Commission. STORMWATER RETENTION: The on -site storm water retention study from the developer is forthcoming. It should be noted that the site is devoted to impervious materials (buildings and parking). Staff is concerned that the review of this plan will change drastically once the on -site hydrology plan is submitted. The plan will show that the developer cannot meet his 100 year storm requirements on -site, thereby affecting the design scenario, as proposed. Staff would prefer not to act on this case until the preliminary study is submitted for review. VARIANCE APPLICATION REQUIRED: The architect has not meet the side yard requirements of the CPS zone District for the east side of the project. The standard states that any building which is higher than 35 feet (up to 50 feet) shall have a minimum property line setback of not less than two feet for each one foot above 35 feet. The proposed parking structure would not conform with this requirement. DRB10/2.F2/CS -3- 029 STAFF COMMENTS: 1. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering pedestrian/bike trail. The plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the applicant/developer. 2. The landscape program for Washington Street should include a variation of planting materials, i.e. palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature California Pepper, Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle, Bottle Trees, and Washington Robusta Palms should be encouraged. Varieties of flowering shrubs such as Texas Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and Dwarf Oleander should be utilized. Native (low water use) plants should be used, and the landscape architect should consult the Coachella Valley Water District's plant materials list prior to designing their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms should be considered along Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt). 3. The proposed retention areas on -site should be landscaped with materials which will support growth even though they are accepting water run-off from paved surfaces. 4. Any proposed parking lot lighting plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study should be developed which analysis the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160 (Off-street Parking). The height of the light poles should not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. 5. The developer should contribute to the landscaping and/or hardscape program of the future median island on Washington Street and Highway 111. 6. A one story building height of 22 feet shall be maintained along Washington Street and highway 111 within 150 feet of the ultimate property line (after street dedication has been included). 7. Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all two-way driveways into the project site. The concrete should be stamped and colored to accentuate the proposed development. The color, design and location of the concrete should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during a final plan check review. DRB10/2.F2/CS -4- O i B. The final plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to the submission of the plans to the Building Department for final plan check consideration. The final plans should include but not be limited to landscaping and irrigation, buildings, signs, mechanical, etc. 9. Bike racks should be provided at convenient areas within the site for usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50 parking spaces should be provided as noted in the Off-street Parking Code. 10. The applicant should file a Variance Application if they cannot meet the side yard setback requirements of the CPS Zone District. 11. The landscape setback on Washington Street should be a minimum of 20 feet from.the new property line. 12. All open parking stalls should be screened by walls, landscape hedges, or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42 inches. 13. A master sign program should be submitted during final plan check review. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Design Review Board recommend a continuance of Plot Plan 91-466 until the preliminary hydrology study can be reviewed. Should the Board disagree with this recommendation, then the Board should condition the project accordingly and forward the case to the Planning Commission for consideration. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Large Plans 3. Reduced Plans 4. Applicants statement for the Variance Application 5. Letter stamp dated September 9th from Best, Best and Krieger 6. Zone District Excerpt (CPS Zone) 022 DRB10/2.F2/CS -5- 1 ©_, V Trader p\' Park p. ` IAI s VENUE Y C`? r MILES I Wells zo G w^p I —_L-_ - l `GJI9'1"•%�r BM 72� Q o O.^ LN =• y v lA��� '. BM :61 Q LB, 0 - O '.. TP�Fkrailer C �y Trader Park Trailer Pdrk lug ^ s F —=---- - _-------:.-- _-- /T ——wen v 1 b O w 0 _ O W O ENUE 32 a s 16E-fo CASENQr1.,� Well / — D Well e :. o / n a Ws r Er V w40 ^` 1 6 C.N LA QULV A ALIF- 'I'r__� HE/4 PALM DESERT 15 ADRANGLE ! N3337.5—W116A/7.5 i 1959 'q PHOTOREVISED 1980 -- - e .q • a 38 ; DMA 2751 III NE —SERIES V895 � n N u q �. Ilr' :.•. n ' m r r� 93 1 1 / , , dk" V .. a 133t/1 S NO.49N/HSVM— _ ,no db� 0 024 _ Garr d z — �' a�a�a 't �izgaw ��J • � , •.�.I I I i 1 ' —1 �1 Cj cl- 1 1 I LLJ i s • III ;., in �1; l A{' � 1 -1 I �1 . it ,1. _' •. 1 cia 11_a II II III I C a kI' � e,l EM 1 •;•1 : •yl, �IP \� �Yt`iC^1"�Y.—Lim wete��'n:i:��iva�es�w3ma ' E .., { � I U rGi 9i ? X W — Fm \a 5 O TIT Fm FM'i u�. IJ� a IN - O e � _ ! • -� 029 1 i l rGaU?j N c ry I; AMD i_ O Bills a ` 2ls { \/ � � _ \ ga . CM gic ` w 031 _ice l��"""I r,,aH■p■■■■■ ��. .. eggs some son LITTLEWORTH' KHN O. THOMAS S. SLOVJJF' JOHN E. BROWN' MICHAEL T. RIDDELL' MEREDITH A. JURY' MICHAEL GRANT' FRANCA J. BAUM' ANNE T. THOMAS' O. MARTIN NETHERY' GEORGE M. REYES WILLIAM W. FLOYD. JR. MICHAEL A_ CRISTE' GREGORY L. HAROKE KENDALL H. AIFcVEY CLARK H. ALSOP DAVID J. ERWIN' MICHAEL J. ANOELSON' •A nOi2MCNN. C[K1aOnA�V. BEST, BEST & KRIEGER ♦ IMw[iV V ICwGO If/[1UN.L �K�A.P� LAWYERS DOUGIAS S- PHILLIPS' ANTONIA GRAPHOS GREGORY K. WILKINSON WYNNE S. FURTH DAVID L. BARON VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS EUGENETANAKA BASIL T. CHAPMAN TIMOTHY M. CONNOR 1RCTOB L. WOLF DANIEL E. OLIVIER DANIEL J. McHUGH HOWARD B. GOLDS STEPHEN P. DEITSCH MARC E EMPEV JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER MARTIN A. MUELLER J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR JEFFERY J. CRANDALL SCOTT G SMITH JACK B. CLARKE JEANNETTE A. PE TERSON BRIAN M. LEWIS BRADLEY E. NEUFELD GEOFFREY K. WILLIS KANDY LEE ALLEN ELISE K. TRAYNUM WILLIAM D DATLING. A TERESA J. MHSTOJKOVIC VICIORIA N. KING MATT H. MORRIS JEFFREY V. DUNN STEVEN C. D EIAUN BRANT N. DWIRIN ERIC L. GATHER OENNM M. WTA JULIE HAYW ARD BIGGS RACHEL" J. NKALLE ROBERT W. HARGREAVES JANICE L. WEIS CHRISTIAN E. HEARN SHARYL WALKER PATRICK W _ PEARCE KIRK W. SMITH KLYSTA J. POWELL JASON D. OASAREINER HAYDN WINSTON DAVID A. PRENTICE KYLE A. SNOW MARK A EASTER DIANE L, FINLEY MICHELLE WELLETTE ,,TERM BARMACK DAVID P. PHIPPEN KENNETH R. WEISS J. CRAIG JOHNSON SUSAN C NAUSS CHRISTOPHER WOSON MARK W NOW[ BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON ELAINE E HILL WILLIAM J. ADAMS W ANDA S. MCNEIL KEVIN K. RANDOLPH EUGENIA J. MORE2E1 JAMCS S. GILPIN JAMES M. KEARNEY MARSHALL 5. RUDOLPH KIM A. BYRENS CYNTHIA M. GERMANO MARY E. GILSTRAP GINEVRA C. MARUM DANIEL C. PARKER, R. NGUYEN D. PHAN PAUL G. GIBSON CRAIG 5. PYNES CHARLES E. KOLLER RAYMOND BEST (1SGSJ957) JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913-1975) EUGENE BEST (1893-1981) September 5, 1991 John J. Pena, Mayor City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Dear Mayor Pena: 600 EAST TAHOUITZ CANYON WAY POST OFFICE BOA 2710 PALM SPRINGS. CALIFORNIA 92263 TELEPHONE (619) 325-7264 TELECOPIER (619) 325-0365 OF COUNSEL JAMES B. CORISON RICHARD A. OSNINS' RONALD T. WRA -.—C. W NLW .ORL NE NN, w.`ON o.c mart v cv.r OFFICES M RIVERSIDE 0141656 14M RANCHO MIRAGE (619)565-2611 ONTARIO (714) 989-8584 C j0 CITY 0i1 Ur ":;ui V, IA As you are no doubt aware, Simon Plaza, Inc. has a design review application pending before the City to allow construction of a restaurant/banking facility, a three story medical office building, a two story recreational facility, as well as an attendant parking structure to service each of the foregoing buildings. This parcel, currently in escrow, is owned by 3S Partnership which consists of Fred Simon, John Sanborn and myself, and Pomona First Federal. In general, the proposed development has been well received by the City staff, as well as many other residents and officials of the City with whom we have shared it. The staff has requested additional information which is currently being assembled and will be forwarded to them promptly. In addition, Simon Plaza and City staff are having ongoing discussions dealing with the City policy, contained in the General Plan, which provides that the City should pursue low density (low level) structures along major arterials. We understand that the City policy is to require one story structures within 150 feet of the property line. It is further our understanding that under appropriate circumstances the City Council may modify that policy if such modification, on balance, serves the interests of the City. I am writing this letter to you because of the long history of discussions and correspondence you, Mr. Simon, Pomona and I have had with respect to the property and the Washington Street Corridor Plan of the City. The purpose of this letter is to review that history and to point out why we believe a modification PTSI5482 037 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KRIEGL... John J. Pena, Mayor September 51 1991 Page 2 of the City policy with respect to building height, in this case, serves the interest of both the City and the developer. As you will recall, this property was subdivided pursuant to the terms of Parcel Map 18418 in 1982, shortly after the incorporation of the City. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of that Map, the 3S Company, and Pomona, the owner of Parcel 6 of that Parcel map were required by the City to make certain dedications of rights of way along Washington Street and Highway ill and to improve those rights of way with paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and traffic light modifications. In addition, of course, we were required to install water and sewer improvements to serve not only our property, but also other properties in the area. Those improvements were later installed at substantial expense to us. In early 1986, we became aware that the city was considering an amendment to its General Plan which would adopt as a part thereof the Washington Street Corridor Plan which would have a significant impact upon our properties. As the attached correspondence will attest, we violently objected, and informed the city that we believed that they city could not exact additional rights of way and improvements from us, and that if it adopted and implemented the proposed plan, it could not count on our project to voluntarily, or as a condition of development, dedicate or improve the rights of way which would have been required to implement the plan. We had several meetings with the staff at that time, and went to considerable time and expense in preparing and presenting plans which were alternatives to those set forth in the Washington Street Corridor plan. We were assured that nothing would happen without further discussions with us. Unfortunately, in 1987, and without notice to us, the City adopted a plan which resulted in a proposed widening of Washington. When we became aware of the change, we immediately contacted you and the City Manager, and again reiterated our position that we did not intend to dedicate or improve any addition right of way along either Washington Street or Highway 111; that we had an absolute vested right to develop our property in a fashion consistent with our approved Parcel Map and the zoning applicable to the property at the time we began development, and that if the City really intended to implement its plan for Washington, it should plan on condemning the property, because we would not dedicate it. We also pointed out that with the Washington Street Plan in place, and the set backs required along both Washington Street and Highway 111, the parcel owned by Pomona, and our parcel situated adjacent to Washington Street had become virtually undevelopable, and would result in a claim by us and Pomona that the remainder of those parcels not taken for street expansion had PTS15482 038 LAW OFFICES Of BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGE. John J. Pena, Mayor September 5, 1991 Page 3 been rendered virtually useless resulting in a claim by us and Pomona that the remainder had been taken by inverse condemnation. Thereafter, we had several meetings with both you and the City Manager. At a meeting held on October 1, 1990 with Mr. Kiedrowski, the City Manager, we informed him that we had several potential buyers for the property, but that we were unable to proceed with any one of them until the issue of the Washington Street right of way and set backs had been resolved. He told us that it was unlikely that the matter could be resolved without specific development plans being submitted to the City, and he encouraged us to prepare a plan which would accommodate the needs of both the city and the owner of the property. He specifically told us that he thought that the matter could be resolved to the satisfaction of both the city and us if each of us was mindful of the concerns of the other. He acknowledged that the right of way issue was of concern to the city, and suggested that if we were willing to compromise with respect to the dedication, the city might very well be willing to compromise with development standards which might otherwise be applicable to the property. He urged us to keep in touch with the City as our plans progressed. Based upon our discussions with both Mr. Kiedrowski and you, we have worked assiduously to plan a development for the corner which will serve the interests of both the City and ourselves. That plan is embodied in the documents which we have submitted to the City for review and approval, and includes the dedication by us of Washington Street to its planned width as desired by the City. It should be noted that in order for us to accomplish the plan, we have agreed to purchase the Pomona parcel so that we can offer the dedication and develop the property as an integrated project. In return, we are requesting that the city policy regarding height in this area be modified. We believe that our proposed development will be a significant asset to the city and will result in a project on this most important intersection at the entrance to the cove in which the city may well be proud. We think that this is truly a win -win solution to our mutual problem. The City gets its right of way, and both we and the city get a quality development with which we may both be very pleased and satisfied. In the event the city is unwilling to modify its policy regarding height in this area, we will have no alternative other than to return to development of our portion of the property within the parcels as set forth in our approved map, and consistent with the applicable zoning ordinance and policies in effect at the time. In such event, we will not be in a position to purchase the Pomona parcel or to dedicate the Washington Street frontage. Pomona will PTSi54U ,. 039 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KRIEGE.. John J. Pena, Mayor September 5, 1991 Page 4 undoubtedly develop its parcel independent of us. Furthermore. we are of the legal opinion that the City may not, in such event, require the dedication as a condition of the development. We believe that this alternative is a lose -lose proposal. The city does not get its right of way, and both the city and we get a development which will not match what we are currently proposing in terms of quality. We hope that we are not left in this position. As always, we remain ready, willing and able to meet with you, the City Council, the Planning Commission and staff at any time to discuss the matter further. If additional information is desired, please give me a call, and we will respond immediately. We are most anxious to have this matter resolved at the earliest possible time. Since 1986, we have entered into agreements to sell the property to three separate buyers. Each one of them has walked away from the transaction because of the uncertainty surrounding the dedication and set back issues. We hope that we can finally put this matter behind us. matter. Thank you for your consideration of this most important Yours very truly, 1� S Paul T. Seizer— PTS/ssk Enclosures cc: Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager ✓Jerry Herman, City Planner Gilbert F. Smith, Pomona First Federal Philip M. Pead, Simon Plaza, Inc. Fred Simon, 3S Partnership John Sanborn, 3S Partnership P7S15482 04� 8 6 �lL1L(C � ® PONTIAG tn® July 22, 1986 Mr. John J. Pena, Mayor CITY OF LA QUINTA Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear John: I would like to acknowledge your correspondence of July 18, 1986, in reference to the road design of Highway 111/ Washington Street Intersection. We are in the process of the final negotiations of selling the property to a developer and it would certainly be beneficial to get some commercial property established on that corner as soon as possible. I am sure that with the interest you have expressed in your letter, once we have a Developer's Plan suitable for submission, we can move ahead for final consideration. I will continue in my efforts and hope we can get develop- ment started with the City's assistance. Sincerely, SIMON MOTORS, INC. ef red J. Simon President FJS:mec CC: City Council Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager Larry Stevens, Community Development Director Robert Weddle, City Engineer John Sanborn, Sanborn/Webb Paul Selzer, Best, Best & Krieger Bob Nichols, Pomona First Federal "The Home of Personal Service" P. O. Box 1461. 78-611 Highway I11, La Quinta, California 92253 (619) 346-2345 04 78-105 CALLE ESTADO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564,2246 July 18, 1986 Fred J. Simon, President Simon Motors, Inc. P. O. Box 1461 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Fred: Pursuant to your request, the Community Development Department has reviewed both of your proposed revisions to the road design at the Highway 111/Washington Street intersection. The City appreciates your efforts in preparing alternative designs for the area which take into consideration both your concerns about additional right-of-way and community concerns relating to traffic safety. With regards to the designs proposed by Sanborn/Webb, they represent acceptable design possibilities for the Washington Street corridor near the Highway 111 intersection. Each generally provides for adequate capacity and uses accepted traffic design standards. Each would also be considered as consistent with the adopted Washington Street Specific Plan. You should be aware that it was not the purpose of the Washington Street Specific Plan to select a precise road design and no such design has been determined at this time. The Specific Plan was intended to provide general design and right-of-way criteria for the corridor and any number of design alternatives, including those prepared by Sanborn/Webb, will be considered in the upcoming phases of plan implementation. While it is premature to select a particular design at this time, please be assured that it is certainly the City's intent to minimize potential right-of-way acquisition to give due consideration to existing improvements, to carefully evaluate impacts on affected property owners and to minimize road improvement costs in the ultimate improvement of this important road corridor. The City is currently preparing a precise alignment. study and a financing feasibility study and, following that, experts to prepare improvement plans in its efforts to improve the Washington Street corridor to at least a four -lane condition as soon as possible. In the event that your desire to secure approvals for and develop the Washington Street frontage parcels would occur prior to the completion of these studies, the City will attempt to resolve the •J O^ MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 Fred Simon, President Simon Motors, Inc. July 18, 1986 Page 2. precise design issues as part of any development application that would be submitted for the affected parcels. It is expected that the general comments on the Sanborn/Webb revisions would provide adequate guidance to prepare site development designs suitable for submittal. In preparing those plans, you should feel free to work with Larry Stevens, Community Development Director, and Bob Weddle, City Engineer, in order to minimize the impact of changes that typically occur through the development review process. It is hoped that this response gives you adequate assurance that we can work in concert in resolving mutual concerns along this very important corridor. I believe that we can achieve our common goals best by continuing to work together. Your interest in resolving any differences and continuing to progress towards mutually acceptable solutions is appreciated. Sincerely, ohn J. ena /� Mayor JJP:LLS:dmv cc: City Council Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager Larry Stevens, Community Development Director Robert Weddle, City Engineer John Sanborn, Sanborn/Webb Paul Selzer Bob Nichols 043 Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan Association Since 1892 July 3, 1986 Mr. John Pena, Mayor CITY OF LA QUINTA Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, Calif. 92253 Re: Widening of Washington Avenue Dear Mayor Pena: Pomona First Federal has received a copy of the plans submitted on behalf of Simon Motors, Inc. in regard to the proposed Washington Avenue widening. Although this would still have a detrimental affect on our property, it is much more acceptable than the previous action taken by the City. It appears that the Groves traffic study, includ- ing projections for traffic through the year 2035, is more realistic than other reports received by the City. The Plan submitted by Mr. Simons substantially re- duces'the cost to the city and permits property usage which would result in additional taxes for the city. It also renders our property as being immediately usable rather than unuseable as will result under your present plan and would result in a lower acquisition costs. Our Board of Directors has not had a meeting to discuss the amended plan submitted by Mr. Simon, but I feel confident that it will meet with much more approval by the Board than the present plan. Thanking you in advance for consideration of the pro- posed plan by the La Quinta City Council, I remain Very truly yours, WILLIAM G. BERGMAN, JR. Vice Chairman of the Boa d of Directors of Pomona Firs Federal Savings and Loan Association WGB,JR:ps �44 Adminiavative Offices: 350 South Garey Avenue, 0.0. Boa 1520 • Pomona. Ca�,tor�,a 91169 • 01e1 623 2323 • 12131 625.7666 • (818) 96a.7800 • pval 972-0521 6 6 8 Ca lk. 0 Po _ ac rpia UC ; June 26, 1936 Mr. John Pena, Mayor CITY OF LA QUINTA pa Post Office Box 1504 �G La Quinta, CA. 92253 I vS Dear John: J 0 / Enclosed is a work -up that Mr. John Sanborn has completed after visiting with Judith Cox and Larry Allen of the City Council, and Larry Stevens of your Planning Department. The plan submitted to you on June 13, 1986, revised the original plan developed by B.S.I. and your Planning Department, which severely cut the property on the corner of Washington and Highway 111. After submitting our revision and attending the projected traffic study by the Groves, Mr. Sanborn and Mr. Selzer visited with the three individuals mentioned ab'Qve, and from their discussions, Mr. Sanborn made several additional revisions which show adaquet lanes to accept the traffic patterns as outlined in his correspondence dated June 24, 1986, a copy of which is attached along with revision number 2 by the property owners. I think this plan makes alot of sense because the median islands are sufficiently wide at six feet, and would seperate the traffic patterns adaquetly. The end results are that less property is needed to accomodate the traffic patterns than on our first revision and therefore less cost to the City would be necessary in acquiring this land. Even with this revision, Pomona 1st Federal would lose 4050 square feet and 3S loses 6400 square feet, in comparison to the original plan submitted and approved by the City Council which would be well over an acre or close to 50,000 square feet. I hope you will all take this into consideration and allow us to discuss this matter with you if there are any additional questions. Sincerely, SIMnON MOTORS, INC. Fred J. Simon \ President "The Home of Personal Service" cc: Nichols \ P. O. Box 1461, 78-611 Highway 111, La Quinta, California 92253 (619) 3?Mtn Stevens 045 June 13, 1986 Mr. John Pena, Mayor CITY OF LA QUINTA Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, CA. 92253 Dear Sir: This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of June 12, 1986, relative to the changes adopted on the corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, that have taken such a large protion of the land from the East side of the corner, that it renders the parcels owned by Pomona 1st Federal, unbuildable. It also severely disects the parcel owned by 3S on the corner of Simon Drive and Washington Street, which again would make it questionable as to whether or not it would be useable as a commercial site. I have submitted a revised plan to you that has been worked up by Sanborn Webb, Inc., which we think works. It also limits the loss of property to the two owners and would reduce substantially, the cost of acquiring the parcels, by the City of La Quinta, in order to do the plan that was originally adopted. We have included a study done by the Groves that was submitted to the City and was accepted by you as a traffic study for Washington Street. It varies quite drastically from the one B. S..I. is now submitting for the Washington Street corridor. The groves projection, projects considerably less traffic than the B. S. I., and we, for the sake of common sense, can not see Washington Street carrying more traffic than Highway 111 in future years, and that in essence, is what their study and your planner have done with the configurations on the current plan. Our recommendations have many advantageous points that should be taken into consideration. 1) Adequately covers the traffic project for Washington Street. 2) Allows for stacking on the corner. 3) Eliminates severe loss of property by owners of corner. 4) Reduces cost to City tremendously. 5) Logically allows solutions to problem, so we can proceed with developing the corner immediately. . 6) With the corner developed, we can begin to bring revenue into the City, rather than taking revenue out of the City's coffers. 7) Continues to solve the problem for the people at "Point Happy". 'The Home of Personal Service" P. O. Box t461. 78-61 1 Highway I i i , La Quinta, California 92253 (619) 346-2345 O46 Mr. John Pena June 13, 1986 Page 2 All in all, this alternative plan resolves the problem at "Point Happy". It resolves the problem of traffic stacking. It resolves the problem logically for all concerned and limits the need for acquiring entirely the two parcels affected. I hope you can personally participate and I am asking Mr. Bob Nichols of Pomona 1st Federal, Paul Selzer and John Sanborn of 3S, to personally participate with your Planning Department and your City Council to correct this problem as quickly as possible so that we may proceed to develope the land and bring revenue into the City!! Sincerely, SIMON MOTORS, NC l Fred J./Symon Presi n FJS:mer cc: Bob Nichols Paul Selzer John Sanborn Larry Stevens 017 .. Ia. (r J .:c J rIf C\ i a April 25, 1986 Ci.tr CcLnlc:il C.ty of La Q::inta La Quinta, U� 92253 LA'V: OFF ICES Of (31-ST, PEST C KRIEGER CCO CGE.T TAi-0:gl[-MCCALLUM %V,'`Y F. C. CC.. Y. 2T0 P/ P.! C. F RI I: �5, CALIF O RII:/\ 92204 IELEPI'Oh E' C'6,2_:-?2C, Ti-LEX 7E2735 Dear ::ayor 2.n:i _e:~rbers of tine Council: r. iu I ]IJ I. r....:" r..a q This office rcprCsC-n.t.s the 3S Company and LS1.i7An Fa;all.y PartT:' t•:}:o are the o-.,,nc=s o - Fsrcels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 and Parcel 2_a _.: 1841 S respecti.vel end this letter is t':ritten in co--rectio2:' �'Oli p?"O JOscd I12 S(lint ton S--reet Corrido_ Amendment to the Pl 21? . [:e h11 been in_orncd th:-'.: both the City Council end the P7a. CC,—w4 : - tor. hrsve hC'd Pub li- 11e-arings in connect on tcitn the City Co'....cil has adopted that t0 C�.=1?'.2rr �lc-1. hLTOr t. L'natC'1V, neither the 3S Co;:;Jc1ly i.';,r tlic:`, rcceiv�c net ice of any Fu lie: 1- CI-1'i:it, Obioc"- vc,hC:.-G to tl`e Ei_O^OSE.1 c-iC-.:.�L ,, i:.cl.1c='. b'.�t not L_.-it Cd to ti;_ folk:.i.r:- I:i F:c=_ I:OL �. i_1'i2'l III:Oj7C_ !lOti Ce Ot- Co. �':L:,v Cot2:1C ]_1; �.n C'. e l:i'. C7: ii(. 11. i. (1 11 J. O7L0:l s 11o:- b'Cc1l or 1-Ili entirely ,:'on the C":)!ICrS c_:,1- of vashinl ton Street: while the bcnef l:. i'10 Ut<%st Sllc1.� to of Of one`:t:v values listi'. it tL._ studv are City CounCi I Api:11. 2'i, 19�6 Pane Tao 5. Thr existence of the General Plan Amendnent so significantly clouds the ti`le to the properties oyned by my clients as to make it unmarketable. In view of the foregoing wo would respectfully request that the City reopen the Hearings on this matter after properly giving notice to each o�ner enr.itled thereto in order that we may have ample opportunity to present evidence and alternatives to those plans recommended by the Plennlijg Commission and apparently adopted by the City Council in its Specific Plan Number 86-007. While we wish to cooperate with the City in its nde.avors to improve the area, I am sure you will understand our concern when we fo..nd out after the fact that after having already dedicated 36 feet along Washington Street, five feet along Highway 111 and installing curbs, gutters, sidewalks and traffic signals all at significant expense ar..l all within the last three years, the City now wishes to tear out all of that work and render valueless at least two of the parcels "ith Parcel Map Number 18418 all without notice to us. In vie;-7 of the drastic economic effects this is having on our clients at the present time, we would respectfully request an early res,onse to this letter. 1han'c you for your prompt consideration of this matter. You.-s very truly, ETIST, BEST KRIEGER P'iS`s CC: John Sanborn Fred Sim:)n bcc: Gilbert Smith, Pomona First Federal title. The application shall be placed on the regular agen- da of the planning commission as a discussion matter for the determination of the commission. If the commission approves the waiver, the applicant shall be permitted to file an ap- plication for any required plot plan, conditional use permit or land division. (Ord. 5 §1(part), 1982: county Ordinance 348 59.52) 9.88.050 Development standards. The following shall be the standards of development in the C-P-S zones: A. There is no minimum lot area requirement, unless specifically required by zone classification for a particu- lar area. B. There are no yard requirements for buildings which do not exceed thirty-five feet in height, except as required for specific plans. Any portion of a building which exceeds thirty-five feet in height shall be set back from the front, rear and side lot lines not less than two feet for each foot by which the height exceeds thirty-five feet. The front setback shall be measured from the existing street line un- less a specific plan has been adopted in which case it will be measured from the specific .plan street line. The rear " setback shall be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or easement; if the rear line ad- joins a street, the rear setback requirement shall be the same as required for a front setback. Each side setback shall be measured from the side lot line or from an existing adjacent street line unless a specific plan has been adopted in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. C. All buildings and structures shall not exceed fifty feet in height, unless a height up to seventy-five feet is specifically permitted under the provisions of Chapter 9.i92 of this title. D. Automobile storage space shall be provided as re- quired by Chapter 9.160 of this title. E. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the ground elevation view to a minimum sight distance of one thousand three hundred twenty feet. (Ord. 5 Sl(part), 1982: county Ordinance 348 S9.53) Chapter 9.90 C-V ZONE (COMMERCIAL VILLAGE) Sections: 9.90.010 G4"lly. 9.90.015 Purpo 9.90.020 Permitte diKs. 9.90.030 Accessory u ermitted. 9.90.040 Commercial and tifamily plot plan review required. 9.90.050 Design review require , 9.90.060 Development standards. 9.90.070 Subzones. 9.90.071 C-V-C "The core" subzone. 9.90.072 C-V-P "The park" subzone. 9.90.073 C-V-S "South" subzone. 9.90.074 C-V-N "North" subzone. 9.90.080 e6a_tab7eV cVf' 059 STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DATE: OCTOBER 2, 1991 PROJECT: PLOT PLAN 91-467, CHANGE OF ZONE 91-066 AND VARIANCE 91-017 - DESERT VILLAS APPLICANT: DESERT VILLAS, LIMITED MR. RICHARD DARLING & MR. CRAIG BR'YANT ARCHITECT: GIORGIO DAZZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.; MR DAZZAN CIVIL ENGINEER: KEITH COMPANIES; MR. MIKE ROWE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: RONALD GREGORY & ASSOCIATES; MR. RONALD GREGORY OWNER: AMCOR REALTY FUND III, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP REQUEST: PLOT PLAN: TO DEVELOP A 109 UNIT SINGLE STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX ON +9 ACRES OF LAND ON THE WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, JUST SOUTH OF THE LA QUINTA STORM CHANNEL/WASHINGTON STREET BRIDGE AND 600 FEET NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO. THE PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY ZONED R2 MULTIPLE FAMILY AND R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE PROJECT WILL BE A MARKET RATE APARTMENT COMPLEX, HOWEVER, 30% OF THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE FOR SENIOR ADULTS WITH LOW AND MODERATE INCOMES. CHANGE OF ZONE: THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A CHANGE IN THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +4 ACRES OF PROPERTY AT THE REAR OF THE PROJECT SITE FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R2 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS/AC:RE). VARIANCE: THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT THE CITY REDUCE THE PARKING STANDARDS BECAUSE THE PROJECT WILL HOUSE SENIOR RESIDENTS. THEY ARE REQUESTING: TANDEM CARPORT/GARAGES, A REDUCED NUMBER OF ON -SITE PARKING SPACES, AND PROPOSED UNIT SIZES WHICH ARE LESS THAN REQUIRED BY THE ZONING CODE. BONUS DENSITY: THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DENSITY BONUS FOR THEIR PROJECT BASED ON GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65915 BECAUSE THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. 051 DRB10/2.F1/CS -1- SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: R3/R2-8000 MULTI-FAMILY/R1 SINGLE FAMILY; LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB (TENNIS RESORT) SOUTH: C-P GENERAL COMMERCIAL; VACANT (FUTURE RALPH'S SHOPPING CENTER) EAST: SR SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL; SCATTERED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WEST: R3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB (TENNIS RESORT) DESCRIPTION OF SITE: THE PROPOSED +9 ACRE SITE IS THE NORTHERLY HALF OF A PORTION OF 1 TAX LOT (18.4 ACRES). THE LOT IS FLAT AND UNDEVELOPED AT THIS TIME. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET AND SOUTH OF THE LA QUINTA STORM CHANNEL AND +600 FEET NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO ON -SITE PARKING: PROVIDED (134 COVERED/89 UNCOVERED) = 223* REQUIRED (109 COVERED/127 UNCOVERED) = 236 * TOTAL INCLUDES TANDEM PARKING SPACES BACKGROUND: The property has +680 feet of frontage along Washington Avenue and is 740 feet in depth. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level. The site is partially improved with street improvements along Washington Street, but the site does not have curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements at this time. A future raised median island is proposed along the property frontage pursuant to the City's adopted'General Plan Circulation Element. The site will be allowed left -turn access onto Washington Street from the southerly side of the site pursuant to the past review/approval of the Ralph's Shopping Center project. This common driveway will be signalized. SITE DESIGN: The design concept uses a clustering of low level single story residential units around a private courtyard and attached covered parking for the residents of this complex. The clusters range from a grouping of 6 to 12 units. The units are primarily three bedroom (1,150 square feet) but smaller units are proposed (two bedroom/2 bath at 900 square feet, one bedroom/l bath at 650 square feet and one bedroom/l bath at 550 square feet). Each building group has a pool area and/or private courtyard. The pools are approximately 500 square feet and all have concrete decking areas for lounging. Also a community building has been proposed at the main gate¢ entry 52 DRB10/2.F1/CS -2- An active recreation area is proposed for the west side of the project in the on -site retention basin. A concrete tennis court and 5 concrete shuffle board courts are proposed. MARKETING CONCEPT: Approximately 30% of the units will be for seniors of low to moderate income based on Riverside County Housing Authority demographic information. The units will remain affordable and the developer is presently working with the City's Redevelopment Agency on this matter as of the writing of this report. The preliminary rental rates will range from $400 to $900 per month. CIRCULATION/PARKING: As mentioned above, the site has two points of access proposed along Washington Street, a proposed divided major arterial (120-foot right-of-way). The main entry into the site is located at the center of the property and the other is located along the shared boundary of the site to the south with the Ralph's Shopping Center project (Koenig Development). The project will be a gated community. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING: The landscape setback along the frontage of the site is approximately 20 feet, and a meandering sidewalk is shown along Washington Street. The sidewalk along Washington Street, should be eight feet wide to allow pedestrian and bikeway travel. Landscape planters are interspersed throughout the site and a six foot wall will be installed around the perimeter of the site for security purposes. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: The proposed single story ranch (Spanish style design motif) is consistent with the City's design guidelines (e.g. the roof, rough stucco exterior, large glass windows, etc.) Planters are also interspersed along the pedestrian areas to add additional character to the entry into the proposed facility. DRB10/2.F1/CS -3- '' - ' 053 VARIANCE REQUEST: A. Parking Program The developer has requested that the Planning Commission and City Council allow tandem covered parking spaces and, further, a reduction in the number of required on -site parking spaces. The Zoning Code presently requires 1.5 spaces per unit for one bedroom unit and 2.5 spaces per unit for the multiple bedroom units. The developer would like to provide 141 covered spaces and +89 uncovered spaces but all of the proposed spaces seem to meet the minimum size requirements. A revised project ratio of 2.0 spaces per unit versus 2.16. The open parallel parking spaces should be discouraged or enlarged to a minimum size of 9-feet x 30-feet. Staff has researched the request of the developer to have a smaller number of parking spaces than required for the proposed senior residents. Our research has shown that many of the Southern California Cities have a ratio of between .5 to 1.5 spaces per unit as a general requirement, plus additional space requirements if communal eating facilities are proposed (e.g. convalescent care, etc.). The following example would occur if .75 spaces per unit for senior care facilities was allowed. EXAMPLE: 109 units (30%) = 33 units for seniors 33 x .75 = 25 spaces (seniors) 38 x 1.5 = 57 spaces 38 x 2.5 = 95 spaces 177 total spaces (Ratio = 1.6/Unit) With regard to the tandem space issue, the City has never had this type of request before concerning residential or commercial type project. Usually tandem spaces are permitted if they are over and above the minimum number of spaces allowed by the Off -Street Parking Code. The architect: has indicated that he has used this type of design before in the Los Angeles area and he feels it is an acceptable program for multiple family developments. The Planning Commission will be asked to evaluate the merits of this request. B. Unit Sizes: The developer has proposed units (approximately 30%) which are less than the minimum size allowed of 750 square feet. The developer's smallest unit is a one bedroom unit of approximately 550 square feet. The developer has indicated that if he is allowed the smaller unit size, he will be able to expand the projects marketability by reducing the rental rates. This size unit is consistent with the normal size of a standard urban rental unit for either a studio unit or one bedroom unit, and it will be up to the Planning Commission and City Council to permit this code deviation. J�4 DRB10/2.F1/CS -4- STAFF COMMENTS: 1. The landscape program for Washington Street should include a variation of planting materials, such as: palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. Uplighted trees or palms should be considered along Washington Street. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt). The final landscape plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during plan check. 2. The proposed on -site retention areas should be landscaped with material which will support growth even though the areas are accepting water run-off from paved surfaces. 3. A meandering eight foot wide sidewalk should be installed on Washington Street along the frontage of the site. 4. Any proposed parking lot lighting plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study should be developed with analysis the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210. The height of the light poles should not exceed 10 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should try to reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. 5. The developer should contribute to the landscaping and/or hardscape program of the proposed traffic median on Washington Street. 6. The perimeter wall shall be six feet high as measured from adjoining grade height and the wall should be stuccoed to match the building complex. 7. Pedestrian access should be provided between this project and the future shopping center to the south. A pedestrian gate should be installed along the south property line. 6. The recreation facilities in the rear portion of the site should be designed to account for periodic stormwater flows since the area will be used for water retention purposes. Passive outdoor equipment should be examined and the on -site recreational facilities should be approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission during final plan review. 9. All units should be designed for handicap accessibility and include provisions for hardware installation at a later time when the unit is rented to a handicap individual. The California State statutes shall apply. '- ..�,. 055 DRB10/2.F1/CS -5- 10. All dwelling units along Washington Street should be 30 feet from the property line. The measurement should be to the edge of any building exclusive of building patios or eave overhangs. 11. An on -site manager's unit should be provided to assist the residents in their day-to-day management needs. 12. The open parking spaces should be 9-feet by 18-feet. 13. The pools should be handicap accessible and meet all the requirements of the Building Department and the State of California. 14. The distance between independent building clusters should be minimum 10-feet as required in Chapter 9.44.100 (R2 Code). 15. All end space parallel parking spaces should be 9-feet x 30-feet and the interior spaces should be 9-feet x 24-feet. the spaces should be discouraged if they are used abutting 90-degree parking spaces or it they might interfere with on -site traffic movement (e.g. the recreation building). Staff would recommend 90-degree parking spaces for this project instead of the proposed parallel spaces because the project will house senior citizens who might find it difficult to use parallel spaces versus 90-degree parking spaces. CONCLUSION: The project has been designed to encourage tenant interaction at the condominium courtyards internal to each buildings cluster. The spaces are inviting but yet sheltered from vehicular traffic. Passive recreation has also been encouraged. The only negative comment our department would have is that it would have been nice to have limited the amount of paving used for parking areas to a perimeter scheme which would have allowed a larger centralizing greenbelt in the center of the project, abutting the Recreation Building. However, in order to do this the developer would have had to involve a two story plan as well. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Design Review Board recommend approval of Plot Plan 91-467 to the Planning Commission subject to Staff's comments which are noted above. If the Board disagrees with this recommendation, the Design Review Board should continue the project to the next regular meeting so that the applicant and his designer will have adequate time in which to revise their plans. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Large Plans 3. Reduced Plans 4. Applicant's statement for the Variance 05& DRB10/2.F1/CS -6- ZONING GOqSE VAcNtAl PROPOSED R-2 ZONING VACANT R-3 ZONING C-P ZONING (CZ 91-063) CHANGE OF ZONE EXHIBIT S-R ZONING SINGLE FAMILY t��ElVtL-* IN AUG 6 io^, SCALE: T'= 200' I CITY Ur UA quiNTA EXHIBIT 1, 057 hill < 1`Z}- � IIIiil �{CC, li P 4 b Ub -S I unni i.r iiiiiii 11181ftN Ir.!r„ �;: pn=„� fI1 "on iowl mi IA lil II`lil� iiillll Il l i 16!ul! I I I i I0"; N I I Ili �Ie i SII� i P— CV *I / m ! {' || 1 k` �,. \\} (/Z � � | | | � � ! '- . aw.mVf�O ` © 061 §�� \ \ — M\ ay /\� , 2: ; to «S. � % t i 4L� - r� pp2 J to N I 0 063 1� I�I�ili Ila �99 Sa� .ire a — —' --ON 3Stl0 1161HX3 z- j lw� 0 O Rf .10 t 065 e GrTi 9F 04 r# hlVlCA tDRo1 hv1e,5- Hotels, Motels 1 space per guest room plus 40% 1 space for each 200 sq.ft. used for meetings and banquets. Other uses such as bars and restaurants shall provide parking in conformance with the requirements for Commercial Uses listed below. Senior group housing 1 space per unit 40% aMeat space per 5 units Senior group housing 0.5 space per unit 40% that is deed restricted 1 guest space per 5 units for low -moderate income \ levels. u - 190 - �_ 067 R E PU CC O QA EKING AWD TANQ� M PARKING ALLOWANCES 'Im ARCHITECT GIORGIO DAZZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 610 SANTA MONICA BLVD.. SUITE 225 SANTAMO MONICA, CA 90401 2 068 s F' � a 50 IU a. N�, a„`- q '23.� s c= c1- -4 = ooa uFccgga s ,� E ._ o g d+oQ oam y mW da,�Ec z E. °o o�°•cc 8v� u 3 > ro>g•EF,��� p a a aE t4n' E o '�` ° o t 9 d a^ �D testy °- o'�.� d w c s -0 `� o E� v� m Ens w a: W .0 u�a', oo Lta os `n-u �.a.cd y M m `�•pd$ g L~°. a`c •v d a,� m -°,� 3 0 �o " v E.c m m'�2 E 0 o L .E '� �3 >, 4qt� G"G�� � � :9 � � � -ti s .E x `„L°_, � c � E y a .; �2 .E U �.. PX L��O.V Oa ua wk ^'"nu �'�a�W Oo�O �y P„aa„G �� ino. w� o, yEA:CcC 2'z�$o, w� vva ma�:o_.>..•_ 5o PW E 0 m p "yaa, s ads ^o-Q• m> c L bb = a "' o Q S P ro o ..- d.o w m 'Q-• �y s nw�i m uy c s> 5�[V� O' d'� N d o �v��' W C L L 6� CV ,^' `• '-" L d L d s 'DOT 0 L y C M Cs: O O 7 D W a d T w �.0. y+ ✓� G 5 0 F' t t0 d a 'Cyy " C .� t� a p F a O p C m a m E ^' . "' ,�' �' m €.. u R Dm A .°. o "' vai u " w ttDp m O c LmL,, E •o .pF j > `u u t" t��' °UU' api 8 to O O N p m O 0 n G L O in c .° uR d .E � 7 pp N C X W p n R a� U c a L'utu o a= x.c w a= yy u,c E > ro c_ a¢ c a ay aabo o o.o cx .v y O c c �.E c ts cL> E c a E�s'o ao^E dU�E m'«'�cyy m� i Hvo oa`o�>� NO$a ao aid w `��0.tua `ac7❑addw•O 3a swd Z'd 3d ^o c�°�sa�a ca w'dLcv� x'=9LoOeN�M� o p, pp n u a c n c >' v, tQv Yo c� vE .°.vG m > tads°-, o: E a t� o�>a Y' cj 'O M N oZG�s3av�''> 3 w d d¢ tV tr3 ui 3 Ot0 a m T� �G o n A^WC �C ma at Ly'C d N .N "• G O` '/� O N G U a G G _ L b L Y �E ' >• ice. J a G .P D �1 6 G i i s tG ca. .° v�o oob mw Em v"v pia cscn�Eaa. o. rtro'=�a'�cCc '3E As C�'t�.' `�` .E.o ��°ia Y',a r•.` =�roEL�Wc >,3�.v �cmG �j`' m L N - yd ,`3yum DeckoovLW E.E yA cc tC .? v' / r. L ." Y^ a L 'n •C = L a m 0 W y L- n �a m °: C ?sL T«+ = vnc •O O •� O a°+ Y m n L N .�. L C p G > W G> G v •Oa t� t° °' L c= r c- ds i u �; t o .c 3 m a t� O B,L _ �mstuc °iom .c,v C�a°•3..�ac4 aytiEaL �� U- >ycc° o3`ai.c V NDY _ d E v au, d. .en F v. O E 3 N?> • D 3 _ d.c LEC 76 a.+t CY OT �+il.D+�`` OL i.�'YYE �4 Oic NG30. 'OGOYE o—LU �3 ca; `�E5 3 yv3 c;c a-> >Ev bc° au' L' L :a c Ol •OF L bG C._a •C.^�dpC G yJ� �d L1 �S� LL a E u a a GO %_ G O tE a s a ^E . u L L fx.. `• .� '��, 00 t�j ty U Ci 7 a 7 G E CC n"> o N cc c .E w a .; -' •' L Y YI ao E Lo ._E v v:a�, °'c - W�E tiy7 W 3�L� wa 6'-uA _^.1' CuL ;•O Q'Lyya`Jtc a L a °' m° p �' •p C_ L a� O C� u C U J N U O N 4:. G G L y s J R' W u L a D O L U ° L ._ m i0 F •n a+ E F ". ` '� L '?_ .+ C R_ tg vE� awa3nmT� N 3Z UQ FF.GFF OOFF FY�aL+6Li°G6D'CLGa Ob�?�t0 hE0 a�D TpFj m(]GC c w 7 N ^v'i d• M L m E L d c.0 .'"'' a �y v C �' he C 'u > r N r C ,G t0 OGq C o G n roc 3 A .� W n d co •cs See 1221AS(t) (Cast!-122IWk) 1 ARTICLE 2 121 Inver TAke pact can. Every stall designed to accommodate compact can the Holly- -i??y� shall be clearly marked as a compact stall. The minimum bay widths required by Paragraph (b) of this Subdivision may be No. 128,164,y reduced for bays or portions of bays containing compact stalls, provided that the net aisle width is not reduced. .6 only lot 40 lest (d) Attended Conunereted Parking Lots. A public parking area containing no required parking stalls and providing atten- automoblle Yo. IWAR, dants to park the vehicles at all times when sold area Is open for use shall be designed In compliance with Paragraphs (a), (t), (g), (I) and (k) of this Subdivision, but shall not be subject to any other the requirements not forth in any other paragraph of this Sub - automobile division. building or operation of (a) Driveway Location, Access driveways to every parking I,d, a dele- area and garage shall be designed in accordance with Sections 62.105.1, 62.105.2, 62.1053 and 62,105.4 of this Code, and In a manner 1Uy Action to provide the minimum practical Interference with the use of :Uvs to and adjacent property and with pedestrian or vehicular traffic. street auto- 'oning Plan Such driveways shall be located in accordance with a plan and approved by the Department of Buildingand Safety In the fol- during the lowing instances: red number (1) On a lot in a'•P" (including any combination with an natically be '-' "A" or "R" Zone) or "PW Zone. �ted or used spares are (2) For every parking area and garage having a capacity by Ord. No. of more than 25 automobiles or trucks. The Department of Building and Safety shall disapprove any plan which it determines falls to meet the standards estab- I area "d lished by this Paragraph. stalls, other ate e OA alnlltelned In (f) Driveway Width. Every access driveway shall be at y lent nine feet in width In the "A", "RE". 'IRS". '•Rl", "R2" and d, however, selills, "RW" Zones, and 10 feet in width in "RD", •'M", "R41-1 "Rb", 8 pattern Is dards estatr "P", "PB", "C' and "M" Zonea, provided however, every access driveway serving a parking area or garage having a capacity of more than 25 automobiles or trucks shall be at ]cut 19 feet in _ width, or in lieu thereof there shall be two access driveways at least 10 feet in width; provided further, however, that an access for dwelling driveway serving an apartment house erected in the "R7' Zone I shall be at shall be at least 10 feet in width. (Amended by Ord No. 144,M, be at least Elf. 12/11/72.) (g) Driveway and Ramp Slopes. The slope of every -drive - least 8 feet way or ramp shall not exceed 20 percent; except that where an existing driveway being used for access Is required to be ,as provided modified because of a public improvement project, such grade adjoined on may exceed 20 percent, provided the design is approved by the al, partition, City Engineer. yetion is lo- Transition elopes in driveways and ramps shall be designed cured along to the standards established by the Superintendent of Building Ith increased end the Cit Engineer. ( Tapdem Parking. Each required parking stall within al be at least a Darki shall be Individually and easily ac- least 26 feet cesalble, except that automobiles may be parking in tandem In 18 feet long. the following instances: width of each (1) In a public garage or public parking area providing and parking attendants to park vehicles at all times said garage or area is ' this Section. open for use. ..4Ie(2) In a private garage or private parking area serving the parking an apartment house, apartment hotel, hotel, two-family dwelling In an "RW" zone, two-family dwelling in an "RD", 'IRS", "RV or "M" zone on a lot with a frontage of leas than 40 feet, or mul- d garage con- tlple or group dwelling, where said tandem parking is not more f the required than dwelling &MISM than two cars In depth, and provided that at least one parking stall per dwelling unit and all of the parking stalls required for irrodate com- E 9 N Z .W O N zoo N - -0) 0 UQWco '- Q a U � 0 () 0 a.©o�M N OQz za rrt06co < v o 2'0 i- — — ; I LrGx �l i t,;(o On, &x rL 0 -a0 PLASIER COVERED (mgmum SAND FINto) TRELUS COL. la"o 24'A 14' 014 COL -_- - PLAR YIEW PE095TAL SALE%' % Ito" TINCAL TRELLIS (JETIL L& OUINjA DESERT VILLAS ARCHITECT GIORGIO DAZZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 610 SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 225 SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 (213) 393-5055 07� DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 2, 1991 APPLICANT: QUALICO DEVELOPMENT INC. PROJECT: SIGN APPLICATION 91-153 (TT 26769 - SUBDIVISION SIGNS) LOCATION: EAST OF MONROE STREET SOUTH OF 54TH AVENUE BACKGROUND: 1. Tentative Tract 26769 comprises 14 single family lots on a 20 acre site. 2. The Design Review Board approved the landscape plans for this tract on August 7, 1991. 3. The applicant has proposed two permanent subdivision signs, on on each side of the entry into the project. 4. Each sign will be made of wrought iron painted jet black attached to the perimeter wall of the project. The signs are 2.2 feet high and extend over a length of 7.2 feet with an area of 15.8 square feet per sign. The signs will not be illuminated. 5. The applicant has made a sign adjustment application requesting two subdivision signs instead of one as is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. The Planning Commission will consider this request at their meeting on October 8, 1991. The applicant states "We are requesting the additional sign in order to facilitate good design balance and to ensure visibility to traffic moving both northbound and southbound". STAFF COMMENTS: 1. The signs are small and conservative and together add up to less than the maximum sign area allowed. Staff will therefore recommend approval of the additional sign to the Planning Commission. 2. The sign lettering is attractive and well proportioned. RECOMMENDATION: Review the sign in conjunction with Staff comments and determine if they are acceptable or if revisions are needed. DRB10/2.F4/CS -1- 076 Attachments: 1. Locality Plan 2. Location of Signs 3. Elevation of wall showing sign 4. Enlargement of sign lettering 5. Photograph showing rendering of proposed entry to the project. DRB10/2.F4/CS -2- %j r / 1 Pe6 WESSr •.•s• ,........... ATTACHMENT No. i i 1 Ave.53 Ave..�4 �............� Ave. 55 oC0 1 o i HI I I A Av e.566 • a V U M ......... Ave. 50 -stTE OR 1 078 z U O z zap Hz Q S p-acai a; � aaF aw z w d� ao F O as s. u a r O m� FF Q N ° W V dp a � UIm ATTACHMENT No., 2 i I � l f (j r �bU � n '3iy�) I'�I jjj�E{1Cp1�1 g' 4 3 e N J 079 DATE: PROJECT: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE SIGN COMPANY: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OCTOBER 2, 1991 SIGN APPLICATION 91-149/LANDSCAPING PLANS MOBIL OIL CORPORATION JJC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES DONCO & SONS SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS AND AVENIDA MONTEZUMA (SITE OF EXISTING BLACK GOLD SERVICE STATION) (SEE ATTACHMENT #1) Mobil Oil Corporation is utilizing the Black Gold service station and has proposed new signage. The signage program was reviewed by the Design Review Board on August 7, 1991 and approved by the Planning Commission on August 13, 1991. A condition of approval attached to this sign permit required the submittal and approval of landscaping plans by the Design Review Board. The original service station and accessory buildings were approved by Riverside County Board of Supervisors on October 29, 1981 with a number of conditions. PROPOSED LANDSCAPING: The Applicant has proposed a landscaping plan largely suitable for the desert. Two areas are landscaped, the corner cutback area and planter alongside the trash enclosure. STAFF COMMENTS: The trees used are Brazilian Pepper along Avenida Bermudas and California Pepper along Avenida Montezuma. Both are listed as street trees on those particular streets in the Village Specific Plan and therefore are appropriate. Indian Hawthorne sometimes does not perform well alongside reflective surfaces such as concrete walks. The Lily of the Nile plans should be replaced with Day Lilies (Hermerocouhs) which is more suitable for hot climates. DRBST.008 082 Staff recommends that the Applicant use modified and quarriedd Palm Springs Gold large size gravel as was used by the Post Office next door instead of lava rock as a ground cover. RECOMMENDATION: Review the landscaping plan in conjunction with Staff comments and determine if the proposal is acceptable or if revisions are needed. Attachments: Locality plan Full size landscaping plans DRBST.008 083