1993 10 06 DRBLM,411
wt 5 WAV
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
A Special Meeting to be held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
October 6, 1993
5:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
II. ROLL CALL
III. BUSINESS SESSION
A. CONTINUED - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-008 AND VARIANCE 93-
023; a request Augustin Martinez (La Quinta Meat Market) for approval to
remodel and enlarge an existing 1,581 square foot one story commercial building
and a request to vary from the C-V-N zoning district standards (street sideyard
setback) and modify the City's Off -Street Parking requirements for a building
located on the northeast comer of Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas.
B. PLOT PLAN 93-510; a request of La Quinta Real Estate Development for
approval of new unit plans for Tract 23268-Acacia.
C. PALM ROYALE PARK; a request of the Parks and Recreation Department for
review of park design located on the west side of Adams Street between Fred
Waring Drive and Miles Avenue.
D. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS REVIEW
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR -
Approval of the Minutes for the regular meeting of the Design Review Board on
September 1, 1993.
+.+.b u 001
60
V. OTHER
VI. ADJOURNMENT
STUDY SESSION
October 4, 1993, Monday
4:00 P.M.
La Quinta City Hall Session Room
002
._�5)P rIli I
STAFF REPORT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1993)
PROJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-008 & VARIANCE 93-023
REQUEST: APPROVAL TO REMODEL AND ENLARGE AND EXISTING 1,581 SQUARE
FOOT ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND A REQUEST TO VARY
FROM THE C-V-N ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS (STREET SIDE
YARD SETBACK) AND MODIFY THE CITY'S OFF-STREET PARKING
CODE REQUIREMENTS
APPLICANT: AGUSTIN MARTINEZ (LA QUINTA MEAT MARKET)
ARCHITECT: CHARLES D. GARLAND
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF CALLE TAMPICO & AVENIDA BERMUDAS
(78--100 CALLE TAMPICO)
BACKGROUND:
On September 1, 1993 the Design Review Board examined the initial
application designed by New Age Design and Mr. Charles Garland to
remodel the old La Quinta Pharmacy building into a meat
market/convenience store. Since the drawings were determined to be
incomplete, the Board voted to continue the case to October 6, 1993 at
the request of Mr. Garland. On September 27, 1993 staff received the
revised submittal.
Proposal
The Applicant is proposing to remodel plus add on to an existing one
story 1,581 square foot commercial building on 0.18 acres. The new
building is designed to accommodate a new meat market as well as a
small second story office for the owner. The new addition is
approximately 930 square feet. The property is presently in the
Village Specific Plan Area and is governed by the C-V-N Zone District
provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
A variance application is being requested to reduce the Avenida
Bermudas building side setback line from 25 feet to 6 feet for the new
addition along the frontage of the site. He has also proposed a
variance to have a handicap parking space on the property line, and to
allow minor architectural projections into the front yard setback.
Surroundinq Land Use
Site: Existing vacant building
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Existing Circle K store
West: Date Grove
001
DRB10/6/CS -1-
Site Information
The parcel is developed with a one story commercial building. Low
voltage utility lines run along the southerly side of the property.
Presently, both streets are paved at this time to allow two-way traffic
movement. Curb, and gutter improvements were recently installed by the
City.
Setbacks
Existing Building New Building
Front (Calle Tampico) 10-feet 10-feet *
Interior Side 43-feet 43-feet
Street Side 6-feet 6-feet *
Rear 39-feet 25-feet
* Note: A Variance is requested.
Background
The existing vacant building was built in the early 1960's. The
building was used by Mr. Louis Campagna (La Quinta Pharmacy) until
recently. The Applicant purchased the property in July, 1993.
Architecture
The existing single story building has a flat roof (with parapet) with
stucco exterior. A tile roofed entry exists on Calle Tampico on the
south side of the building. The Applicant intends to install a new
concrete tile roof for the two story addition and a concrete tile
covered walkway and/or covered overhang around the three sides of the
existing building. The one and two story project is reminiscent of the
Spanish Revival architectural motif and the materials which are used
appropriate for the Village area (stucco, exposed wood beams, tile
roofing, etc.). The design style is appropriate for this area.
Minor Architectural Changes
In the new submittal, the project architect has refined the
architectural drawings and modified some of the past architectural
features. The changes are:
1. The front door entry on Calle Tampico has been moved to the
southeast corner of the building facing the parking lot.
2. The column and eaves of the east, west and south side of the
building have been modified. The eaves are smaller and the
original freestanding columns are attached to the building except
on the south elevation.
3. The architect eliminated the arched parapet on the Calle Tampico
elevation and in its place is a new concrete tile roof structure.
4. The architect has changed the exterior architectural features of
the second story building (e.g. windows, tile, stucco score lines,
etc.).
DRB10/6/CS -2-
5. A new parkway landscape and hardscape design was submitted.
6. The roofed areas have a 4:12 pitch throughout.
7. The trash enclosure was repositioned on the site abutting the
common easterly property line. The enclosure has a secondary
pedestrian access area.
8. Texture concrete was added to the Calle Tampico driveway entrance.
9. A new five foot wide planter was added to the east side of the
existing building.
10. The proposed sign has been removed from the roof and relocated
below the arch on the east and south sides of the building. No
specific design on the signs have been submitted.
11. A new four foot high concrete masonry block wall is proposed along
the easterly property line separating this property from the
existing convenience store.
Site Plan Change
A new site plan has been submitted. The plan is different because the
owner would prefer not to share his driveway and parking program with
the existing Circle K store to the east. Mr. Martinez proposes a
one-way access loop with the entrance at Avenida Bermudas and the exit
on Calle Tampico. In the original submittal, the parking spaces were
adjacent to the existing building and a shared driveway was used
between both businesses. Mr. Martinez has said that he is opposed to
the original design because Circle K customers will use his designated
parking spaces, the convenience store is a 24-hour use, and he will
have to form a binding agreement allowing reciprocal access
arrangements with a property owner(s) he does not know. The
Engineering Department is evaluating the new submittal and their
comments will be presented to the Planning Commission.
New Parking Lot
The building has an existing parking lot on the east side of the
building with access to the parking lot from Calle Tampico and Avenida
Bermudas. The Applicant is proposing to resurface and reconfigure the
parking lot with angled parking on the east side of the property
allowing exiting onto Calle Tampico from Avenida Bermudas. The parking
spaces are 9-feet by 18-feet with a 16-foot (one-way) drive aisle.
Seven parking spaces are proposed. The parking space on the north side
of the building is for the owner and/or loading.
STAFF CONDITIONS:
Staff would offer the following comments:
1. Incandescent uplighting should be used for the parkway
landscaping. The fixtures shall meet the provisions of the City's
Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. The lighting should include glare
control features which will help direct the light to the trunk of
the tree. The lights should be located either on the ground or
eight feet off the ground mounted to the trunk of the tree.
A
005
DRB10/6/CS -3-
2. The trash enclosure dimensions should be a minimum size of 8-feet
by 15-feet. Landscaping should be used around the refuse area.
3. The existing building is approximately 6-feet from the westerly
Avenida Bermudas property line. The new addition would extend the
building along this 6-foot building setback line. The second story
which is at the back is also 6-feet from the building setback
line. This proposed setback does not meet the requirements of the
C-V-N Zone District which requires a 25-foot building setback from
any property line in order to reduce the future physical separation
of buildings along the visual impact of the building on the street
and to retain a pedestrian scale. The code does allow exceptions
to this provision on a case -by -case basis if it is found that the
integrity of the Village Specific Plan is being maintained. The
Planning Commission will determine whether the setback variance
will be permitted.
4. The sidewalk on Calle Tampico should be either six to eight feet
wide to allow both pedestrian and bikeway traffic on this primary
arterial street. The sidewalk on Avenida Bermudas should be six
feet wide.
5. The final sign program and landscape plan should be reviewed by the
Design Review Board prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. A street tree program should be incorporated into the project for
both street frontages. The trees should be spaced at 20-feet
intervals. The program could consist of palms or canopy trees.
The developer might examine using Jacaranda, Willow, olive or other
type of tree which is either colorful or feathery in texture.
These types of trees will not block the visibility of the proposed
building structure or hinder building sign identification. All
parking lot trees should include deep well watering systems to
ensure tree growth.
7. All landscaping areas should be irrigated by drip irrigation
methods where possible and all nuisance water shall be retained
on -site within the landscape areas or by other approved methods
(e.g. drywell).
8. The decorative concrete paving used to accent the driveway entry on
Calle Tampico should be textured concrete and colored to add
attention to this area.
9. All exposed wood beams should be made of rough sawn lumber with
decorative exposed rafter tails. The beams should not be painted
or stuccoed. The roof structure shall not extend into the City's
right-of-way.
10. The architectural materials and colors of the building shall be
architecturally compatible (i.e. identical architecture, colors,
and/or materials) with the Village Specific Plan Design Goals.
Cement plaster texture used on building shall be of a decorative
nature and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of
a building permit.
DRB10/6/CS -4-
006
11. one on -site handicap space shall be required (A.D.A. standards
8-foot ramp plus 8-foot wide parking space).
12. The windows and doors on the first floor level should be single,
small -pane division openings (e.g. French doors, casement opening
windows). The windows and doors should be recessed into the
building not less than six inches. A stuccoed plant -on detail
should be added around these facilities to add character to the
proposal. The frames should be wood, but metal will be allowed if
it is anodized a dark color.
13. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened by the
decorative stucco parapet per municipal code requirements.
14. Recessed lighting should be used along the covered pedestrian
walkway for security and safety reasons.
15. Decorative lighting should be used on the east side of the building
in the parking lot for patron safety if the facility is to be open
during evening hours. Fixtures shall be approved by the Planning &
Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
16. The underside of the pedestrian arcade should be wood planking or
exterior plaster.
17. A shrub hedge should be installed along the easterly property line
if the parking lay -out is approved by the Engineering Department.
18. No portion of the building (e.g. building eaves, etc.) shall
encroach into the City's right-of-way.
19. The pedestrian sidewalk (on -site) on the west side of the building
should be four feet wide in order to increase the landscaping area
along Avenida Bermudas.
20. Fifty percent (50%) of the parking area shall be shaded by tree
cover. Triangular planter areas should be incorporated at the end
of each of the on -site parking spaces.
21. The four foot high masonry on the east property line shall be
stuccoed to match the remodeled building and it should not be any
closer than ten feet to the front property line.
Store -front Character
The owner has decided to shift the importance of his store to the east
side of the building or towards the on -site parking spaces. This
change has modified the original store -front design on Calle Tampico.
The new elevation on Calle Tampico has been architecturally upgraded
except the store windows are no longer present. The windows are on the
east side facing the proposed parking lot. The east side is more
attractive, but the south side has suffered by this loss. The Design
Review Board should discuss whether or not the owner should upgrade
this side of the building to maintain an interesting or inviting visual
image for this image corridor. The Design Review Board should also
review the architectural/pedestrian character of Avenida Bermudas.
DRB10/6/CS -5-
Discussi
The plans have been revised, however, there still are a few minor items
on the floor plan which do not correspond to the elevation drawings.
For example, the site plan has a column in the center of the building
(west side) but this column is not shown on the elevation drawings.
Staff has spoken with the designer, and he has stated that the
architectural elevation is correct. The other minor item is the floor
plan which shows a fixed, high glass window on Calle Tampico, but the
window is not delineated on the elevation sketch. The designer states
that the window is supposed to be installed. These items are minor,
but they should be discussed at the meeting to make sure that proper
corrections can be made in the future.
Conclusion
The applicant has attempted to meet the goals and policies of the
adopted Village Specific Plan by incorporating tile roofing, a varied
roof design, vertical columns & arches, and other new materials which
are encouraged or required in the Village Specific Plan. Staff
supports the proposal provided the recommended conditions are imposed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Design Review Board should review the plans in light of the above
Staff comments and recommended conditions. Should the Design Review
Board feel major .revisions are needed your recommendation can include a
recommendation to refer the plans back to the Design Review Board prior
to Planning Commission approval.
Attachments:
1. Large Plans (dated September 27, 1993)
2. Vicinity Map
3. Previous Design Review Board report
nos
DRB10/6/CS -6-
�,, !._.i. t.
•�•••• jam,••,• •.•• •. ••
• . • „ y�
•��
At
am
S�
14
M
•~
W
Li
a ti•�.'?tr'(.�.�4};l i! iM.�i*�.
fill _1 �L� .�' a
vzooa -'� I Voaw..
L
aosvvn vow3nY
STAFF REPORT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1993
PROJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-008 & VARIANCE 93-023
REQUEST: APPROVAL TO REMODEL AND ENLARGE AND EXISTING 1,581 SQUARE
FOOT ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND A REQUEST TO VARY
FROM THE C-V-N ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS (STREET SIDE
YARD SETBACK) AND MODIFY THE CITY'S OFF-STREET PARKING
CODE REQUIREMENTS
APPLICANT: AGUSTIN MARTINEZ (LA QUINTA MEAT MARKET)
PROJECT
DESIGNER: GABRIEL LUJAN/ANTONIO MOSQUEDA (NEW AGE DESIGN)
ARCHITECT: CHARLES D. GARLAND
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF CALLE TAMPICO & AVENIDA BERMUDAS
Proposal
The Applicant is proposing to remodel plus add on to an existing one
story 1,581 square foot commercial building on 0.18 acres. The new
building is designed to accommodate a new meat market as well as a
small second story office for the owner. The new addition is
approximately 930 square feet. The property is presently in the
Village Specific Plan Area and is governed by the C-V-N Zone District
provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
A variance application is being requested to reduce the Avenida
Bermudas building setback line from 25 feet to 6 feet for the new
addition along the frontage of the site. He has also proposed a
variance to 1) reduce the two-way driveway widths from 26-feet to
approximately 23 and 24-feet, 2) have a handicap parking space on the
property line, and 3) have approximately 18-foot long parking stalls.
Surrounding Land Use
Site: Existing vacant building
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Existing Circle K store
West: Date Grove
Site Information
The parcel is developed with a one story commercial building. Low
voltage utility lines run along the southerly side of the property.
Presently, both streets are paved at this time to allow two-way traffic
movement. Curb, and gutter improvements were recently installed by the
City.
DRB9/1.GT/CS -1 of
Setbacks
Existing Building
Front (Calle Tampico 10-feet
Exterior Side 43-feet
Street Side 6-feet
Rear 39-feet
* Note: A Variance is requested
Background
New Building
10-feet
43-feet
6-feet
25-feet
The existing vacant building was built in the early 1960's. The
building was used by Mr. Louis Campagna (La Quinta Pharmacy) until
recently. The Applicant purchased the property in July, 1993.
Architecture
The existing single story building has a flat roof (with parapet) with
stucco exterior. A tile roofed entry exists on Calle Tampico on the
south side of the building. The Applicant intends to install a new
concrete tile roof for the two story addition and a concrete tile
covered walkway and/or covered overhang around the three sides of the
existing building. On the west and south elevations the covered
walkway will extend to or over the street property line. On the east
side the roof eave will extend over a portion of the resurfaced parking
lot. The roof pitch for the pedestrian arcade will be 3:12 and 4:12
for the second story office. The building will be restuccoed and new
architectural plant-ons will be used on along the top of the parapet
and on the second story windows.
The one and two story project is reminiscent of the Spanish Revival
architectural motif and the materials which are used appropriate for
the Village area (stucco, exposed wood beams, tile roofing, etc.). The
design style is appropriate for this area.
Parking Lot
The building has an existing parking lot on the east side of the
building with access to the parking lot from Calls Tampico and Avenida
Bermudas. The Applicant is proposing to resurface the parking lot and
revise the existing angled parking with 90-degree parking. The parking
spaces are 9-feet by 18-feet with a 24-foot (two-way) drive aisle.
Seven parking spaces are proposed with one handicap space. The parking
space on the north side of the building is for the owner.
1,,*_ ; 011
DRB9/l.GT/CS -2
STAFF CONDITIONS:
Staff would offer the following comments:
1. Incandescent uplighting should be used for the parkway
landscaping. The fixtures shall meet the provisions of the City's
Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. The lighting should include glare
control features which will help direct the light to the trunk of
the tree. The lights should be located either on the ground or
eight feet off the ground mounted to the trunk of the tree.
2. The trash enclosure should include a separate pedestrian access way
into the trash receptacle other than by using the front gates.
Attached is a drawing of this design scenario. The trash enclosure
dimensions should also be reevaluated. Landscaping should be used
around the refuse area.
3. A sign concept has been submitted. The applicant has requested a
roof mounded non -illuminated channel letter sign on the south
elevation. The letters are painted brown. The sign will need to
be relocated below the roof since such signs are prohibited.
Staff would recommend that the sign program incorporate natural
textures, possibly sandblasted wood sign, which could emulate the
"village" character of this area. However, other materials could
consist of routed wood, individual wood or metal letters, or other
material.
4. The existing building is approximately 6-feet from the westerly
property line. The new addition would extend the building along
this 6-foot building setback line. The second story which is at
the back is also 6-feet from the building setback line. This
proposed setback does not meet the requirements of the C-V-N Zone
District which requires a 25-foot building setback from any
property line in order to reduce the future physical separation of
buildings along the visual impact of the building on the street and
to retain a pedestrian scale. The code does allow exceptions to
this provision on a case -by -case basis if it is found that the
integrity of the Village Specific Plan is being maintained. The
Planning Commission will determine whether the setback adjustment
will be permitted.
ico
ld be eight
5. toeallowdbothgpedestrianoandalle bikewayptrafficuif required byewide
sidewalk the
City Engineer.
6. The final sign program and landscape plan should be reviewed by the
Design Review Board.
7. A street tree program should be incorporated into the project for
both street frontages. The trees should be spaced at 20-feet
intervals. The program could consist of palms or canopy trees.
The developer might examine using Jacaranda, Willow, Olive or other
type of tree which is either colorful or feathery in texture.
V0-j; Ol
st
Ij
DRB9/l.GT/CS -3
These types of trees will not block the visibility of the proposed
building structure or hinder building sign identification. All
parking lot trees should include deep well watering systems to
ensure tree growth.
8. All landscaping areas should be irrigated by drip irrigation
methods where possible and all nuisance water shall be retained
on -site within the landscape areas or by other approved methods
(e.g. drywell).
9. Decorative concrete paving should be used to accent the two-way
driveway entry on Calle Tampico. The textured paving should be
concrete and colored to add attention to this area. The texturing
should be the width of the driveway and 18-feet in length on -site.
10. All exposed wood beams should be made of rough sawn lumber with
decorative exposed rafter tails. The beams should not be painted
or stuccoed. The roof structure shall not extend into the City's
right-of-way.
11. The architecture materials and colors of the building shall be
architecturally compatible (i.e. identical architecture, colors,
and/or materials) with the Village Specific Plan Design Goals.
Cement plaster texture used on building shall be of a decorative
nature and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of
a building permit.
12. A landscape planter should be installed between the 90-degree
parking stalls and the east side of the building. This would
eliminate the need for the concrete wheel -stops. The planter
should be 2 1/2 feet wide.
13. The ninth parking stall should be removed because it will impact
on -site circulation movement. A landscape planter should be
installed in its place. The driveway should be a one-way driveway
for site exiting per the Engineering Department standards.
14. The one on -site handicap space should be redesigned to meet the
A.D.A. standards (e.g. 8-foot ramp plus 8-foot wide parking space).
15. The windows and doors along Calls Tampico should be single,
small -pane division openings (e.g. French doors, casement opening
windows). The windows and doors should be recessed into the
building not less than six inches. A stuccoed plant -on detail
should be added around these facilities to add character to the
proposal. The frames should be wood, but metal will be allowed if
it is anodized or painted a dark color.
16. Additional architectural fenestration should be added to the east,
west and south elevations similar to the north elevation.
17. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened by the
decorative stucco parapet per municipal code requirements.
DRB9/l.GT/CS -4 `�
18. Recessed lighting should be used along the covered pedestrian
walkway for security and safety reasons.
19. Decorative lighting should be used on the east side of the building
in the parking lot for patron safety if the facility is to be open
during evening hours.
20. The building corners should be beveled or rounded to create
interest in the overall design of the building.
21. Colored or textured paving should be used along the south side of
the building.
22. Ceramic tile accents should be used on the south elevation.
23. The underside of the pedestrian arcade should be wood planking or
exterior plaster.
24. Landscape planter should be provided adjacent to the west side of
the building and contain ground cover and medium (6-feet) tall
shrubs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Design Review Board should review the plans in light of the above
Staff comments. Should the Design Review Board feel revisions are
needed, conditions requiring review by the Staff or Design Review Board
before submission to the Building and Safety Department.
Attachments:
1. Large Plans
2. Vicinity Map
3. Trash Enclosure Detail (with pedestrian access way)
1-11 ;l;i 014
DRB9/l.GT/CS -5
✓•O
I
CdEW P�Wdq � '!I
�lrrl 1ka3N rwlcloGtRE.
'o
I ,
pIUI s
Y
6
L �i f�h.ly ►R
IrXYsf•I� P�UILDI{Jq
oNe sTaey
0
`I
� M
O �
71
11i Mi
CALLE
TAMPICO
Q
rn
D
017
DATE:
CASE NO:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT:
ARCHITECT:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
PROPOSAL:
STAFF REPORT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
OCTOBER 6, 1993
PLOT PLAN 93-510
LA QUINTA REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP.
APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR NEW UNITS AT
ACACIA - TRACT 23268.
D C DESIGN ASSOCIATES
TRACT 23268, LOTS 24-33, 130-139 ON WEST HARLAND DRIVE,
OFF OF SEELEY DRIVE.
The applicant is proposing to construct five new units, each with two front elevation options,
to be constructed on 20 of the 75 lots recently purchased by the applicant within the Acacia
tract. The units feature the following:
Area
Bedrooms
Baths
Garage
1.280
3
2
450
2 car
1596
3
2
703
17nes
2 car
FE
1591
3
2
615
3 car
1835
4
2
634
1
3 car
2358
4
3
634
2
3 car
DRBST.102
The existing homes in the Acacia tract featured four plans with a range in size from 1362 square
feet up to 2162 square feet of livable space. The proposed homes will have a similar range,
with the addition of a fifth plan with 2,358 square feet. Garage sizes range from 2 car, 450
square feet in Plan A, up to a 3 car, 703 square feet garage in Plan B. Four of the five plans
feature a 3 car garage. Garage doors are wood overhead doors with plant-ons.
The same colors and materials used on the existing homes will be used on the proposed homes.
The color and materials board is available for review. There is a difference in roof style,
however the same concrete roof tile that was used on the existing homes is proposed for the new
units. Proposed roof lines of the new units feature a dominant gable with 12-inch overhangs.
A model complex is planned for lots 29 through 33, where one of each plan type will be built.
On -street parking is requested on West Harland Drive.
ANALYSIS:
The smallest plan that the applicant is proposing is approximately 82 square feet smaller than
the smallest existing home built in the Acacia tract. The largest plan is 196 square feet larger
than the largest existing home. The mix of new homes provides a balanced configuration similar
to that found in the mix of existing homes.
Heights of the homes range from 16 feet to 24'6", which is well within the R-1 requirement of
28 feet maximum.
Staff visited the tract and videotaped the existing homes for comparative purposes. The
architectural compatibility of the proposed units is debatable.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS:
1. The front yard of all lots, and in addition the street side yard of corner lots, shall be
landscaped to property line, edge of curb, sidewalk, or edge of street pavement, which
ever is furthest from the residence.
2. The landscaping shall include trees (minimum two 15-gallon trees on interior lots and
five 15-gallon trees on corner lots), shrubs, and groundcover and/or hardscape of
sufficient size, spacing and variety to create an attractive and unifying appearance.
Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the standards set forth in the Manual
on Architectural Standards and the Manual on Landscaping Standards as adopted by the
Planning Commission. A landscaping and irrigation plan for the construction of lots 24-
33 and 130-139 shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Development.
3. A permanent water -efficient irrigation system shall be provided for all areas required to
be landscaped.
4. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable condition by
the property owner.
DRBST.102 2 4. 0 r/Zn
5. The standards of the R-1 Zoning shall be met (e.g., setbacks, etc.).
6. If the model homes are converted to sales office (e.g., converted garages, etc.) as part
of the marketing program for the tract, the Applicant shall file with Staff a floor plan or
Letter of Intent detailing the work to be done. A cash bond or another type of security
should be posted to ensure that the home(s) is reconverted prior to its sale and/or
occupancy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review plans in conjunction with staff comments and determine acceptability. The Design
Review Board recommendation(s) will be forwarded to the Planning Commission.
Attachments:
1. Project plans
DRBST.102
3 021
f�
-O ,
STAFFREPORT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1993
CASE NO: PALM ROYALE PARK
PROTECT: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (MASTER
PLAN) FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA PALM ROYALE
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER:
ARCHITECT:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
PROPOSAL:
CITY OF LA QUINTA
T.I. MALONEY, INC. OF RIVERSIDE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF ADAMS
STREET AND LA PALMA DRIVE
R-1
The City of La Quinta is proposing to develop a public, neighborhood park, which is
mildly active in nature and is located on a 5 acre parcel. The parcel is actually made up of
two different planes: a 2.49 acre flat section, and a 2.51 acre retention basin. The
property has existing trees and turf on the flat portion, and the retention area is turfed.
Development of the site will occur in two phases.
A Master Plan has been submitted depicting the two phases of the project. Phase One
improvements will focus primarily on the development of the flat parcel area of the park,
specifically focusing on the play area for children. Site features in Phase include: picnic
table, two (2) playground equipment structures, drinking fountains, concrete paving,
security lighting, and 97 trees.
The second Phase will include a tot pool, drinking fountain, 650 shrubs, 35 trees, two (2)
shade structures, a misting system, jogging path, and security lighting. The total project
area for both phases is over 62,000 square feet.
022
ANALYSIS
The budget for the construction of this project is $144,000 in FY 1993-94. The Master
Plan calls for two Phases, with the cost of each at approximately $140,000.
The architect provided two options for development and phasing: Option A and B. Staff
is suggesting that Option B of the attached 'Master Plan Process "be the development
prionty standard for this project.
Option A calls for a tot pool in the first Phase. However, in Option A the site remains
bland and without a significant landscaping impact. Because of the site's flat nature, the
berming and tree planting which occurs in Option B is preferred in order to provide the
site user with a sense of retreat and shade, and an immediate landscpaing impact.
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS:
No suggested conditions. However, as stated previously, Option B is the recommended
development option.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review the Master Plan and attached document, and provide staff with comment. Staff
requests that the Design Review Board support the Master Plan as prepared. The Design
Review Board's comments and recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission.
Attachment:
Master Plan Process, T.I. Maloney, Inc.
V4_ ,
2�
PALM ROYALE PARK
MASTER PLAN PROCESS
August 1993
Prepared for
City of La Quinta
Parks and Recreation Department
T. I. Maloney, Inc.
Landscape Architecture - Planning
..i 021
CONTENTS
I. Background
I1. Workshop Process
A. Workshop #1 .
B. Workshop #2 .
III. Final Master Plan
A. Final Master Plan Illustrative
B. Development Options
Option A
Option B
D. Operation & Maintenance Costs
IV. Appendices .
Page
. 1
6
7
12
14
15
16
24
27
INDEX:
A. PARK LOCATION MAP
B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
C. SITE ANALYSIS
D. SITE PHOTOS
J. BACKGROUND
02E
Palm Royale Park
4, � Ares
FRED WARING
DRIVE
MILES AVENUE
STATE HIGHWAY 111
10117111 III-ME-11'
a
0
a
A"y I l9
c
\wqT`
A. Park Location Map
C�iil�j o41� p ► O�i Q�
027
B. Back � ro nd Information:
Project Location: West of Adams Street, South of La Palma Drive and West of
Arosa Way
U Park Acreage: 4.75 Acres
park History and Development
Palm Royale Park was initially developed by Triad Development Corporation in 1992 as
a flood control retention basin. The site is divided into two halves. The eastern half is
relatively level with curb grade and is planted with random trees (Brachychiton, Grevillea
and Jacaranda) and turf.
The western half consists of a retention basin approximately 17 feet below curb grade.
The sloped walls and basin floor are turfed. Trees are randomly planted on the slopes.
Outlet structures on the north and east sides and a brow ditch to the south, daylight into
the basin.
The park site is surrounded, for the most part, by existing and future residential lands.
The City of La Quinta proposes to maintain the park site as a passive park that serves
the needs of the adjacent neighborhoods.
A child and tot play area serve as the focal point to the park. This area will also include
a spray fountain, overhead structures with misting systems, seat walls and picnic tables.
An open turf area with canopy shade trees and benches will occur to the south of the play
areas.
The retention basin will remain open for passive play with additional trees planted on the
slopes. Cobble drain diffusers and sumps will be placed at the outlets and brow ditch.
A decomposed granite path with stabilizer will provide a jogging path and circulation
throughout the park. A concrete walk will connect the northeast park entry to the play
areas. Accent paving will radiate from the spray fountain. Stairs from the northwest
corner will provide access to the decomposed granite path.
Perimeter tree and shrub planting with landscape berming will occur along Adams and
La Palma. Trees and shrubs will screen the southern edge.
On street parking will be allowed on the west side of Adams adjacent to the park. No
parking will be allowed on the park side of La Palma and Arosa.
Park security lighting will be provide throughout the park. Care shall be taken to prevent
lighting of adjacent residents to the southwest.
The development of the park will be executed in phases with $144,000 allocated for the
first phase. The project scope includes alternatives and recommendations for phasing.
nqF
N/ W Inl IhlD7
I
RFL,IDENCE I
EXISTINy i��Dr�lTiPl.
L4b, pA_U"P P(L•
vT llotJ
p.� N
I
1 I pel
L F""
o�77
�Iso6DITaF4
cuT uor
eiXISTI fhl 44
T[2-PIL-eF-
Fe-;,ioet
l3U��- IMF
j2>;�iIDEN-tIP�-
LJ
LSI
go Ong AbOytot
I Y
9210,
Photo 1:
Looking South on Adams Street
Western half of park is relatively flat and open to traffic on Adams.
Improvements will include a low landscape berm with trees and low shrubs
as a buffer to the park.
Photo 2: Looking Northeast into Retention Basin form Arosa Way
Storm drain outlets create a bog condition and unsafe openings.
Improvements will include a drainage sump with cobble drain diffusers and
outlet grates.
Dv �So�c� pAoIoD
n3r
INDEX:
A. WORKSHOP #1
Summary
Schemes A, B, & C
B. WORKSHOP #2
Summary
Preliminary Plan
17, WORKSHOP PROCESS
031
Mail Out: City staff mailed out flyers to north La Quinta residents with posted
notices.
Public Workshops: 2 workshops were held at/the City of La Quinta family
Heritage Church, 78-998 MiLes Avenue the tollowing
dates:
June 14, 1993 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 P.M. Attendance: 36
Presentation of 3 design alternatives, discussion of wants and don't wants
June 28, 1993 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Attendance: 19
Presentation of preliminary plan, results of voting ballot
SUMMARY
PALM ROYALE PARK WORKSHOP #1
June 14, 1993
7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
ATTENDANCE: 36
The meeting began with an introduction of the consulting firm of T.I. Maloney, Inc.
Landscape Architecture by Clint Bohlen, Parks and Recreation Manager. He introduced
Tim Maloney and Roger Drayer. Mr. Maloney explained the Master Planning process and
that this was the first in a series of two public workshops to facilitate citizens' input into
the park's design.
Three design schemes were presented with various site amenities and design
approaches. It was explained that the first meeting was designed to define and prioritize
"wants" and "don't wants". The second workshop on June 28 is planned to present a
preliminary design that the team will prepare using the information obtained at the first
workshop.
During the park's development, the progress will be reviewed and direction will be given
by the Community Services Commission. Following the two workshops, the
recommended design will be presented to the City Council for approval.
Mr. Maloney led the group in a discussion of community wants and needs. A voting ballot
indicating site amenities with columns for preferred locations was distributed to the group.
The following is a copy of the voting ballot form. Additional comments included: concern
with drainage problems at the storm drain outlets; keeping the park "low key" with
amenities that meet the needs of the immediate neighborhoods; and maintaining a safe
but low level of park lighting.
VOTING BALLOT
pALN BUYALC RANX
OVERALL SCHEME:
MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1993
WORKSHOP #1
A B C
DO NOT
SITE AMENITIES PREFERRED LOCATION INCLUDE
Tot Play Area
A
B
C
D
Child Play Area
A
B
C
D
Sand Play Area
A
D
Basketball
A
C
D
10 Plus Play Equipment
A
C
D
Teen Swings
A
D
Game Court
B
D
Group,Picnic
A
B
C
D
Picnic Tables
A
B
C
D
Game Tables
C
D
Sand Volleyball
C
D
Turf Volleyball
B
D
Frisbee Golf
A
D
Exercise Course
B
C
D
Softball
B
C
D
Soccer Field Overlay
C
D
Concrete Walks
B
D
Decomposed Granite Walks
A
B
C
D
Perimeter Tree & Shrub Planting
A
B
C
D
Entry Sign Monument
A
B
C
D
Additional Amenities/Ideas:
Theme Suggestions:
Additional Comments:
'- 1l 3
eJOVEME 9AI,
Ma m PARK
I 33�
LA PALMA DRIVE
CUR SW _ /
INVSLU
p
������JJJIII � x[wmnounuwr 4
c
� rxo[ur U
✓'IJ�—'^r �/q I
—a[rnrv[enaurrt wux
smelu �lT.
[h11M[LQltll
CT)5
I
[fie
7
OCNE E .90
9 9
pQI�m PARK
y 4 �wQu&a
tu
Lu
r
N
7�7�'•
033
033
FQI�M JADVAL F FARM
SUMMARY
PALM ROYALE PARK WORKSHOP #2
June 28, 1993
7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
ATTENDANCE: 14
The meeting began with an introduction of the consulting firm of T.I. Maloney, Inc.
Landscape Architecture by Clint Bohlen, Park and Recreation Manager. Mr. Roger Drayer
explained that the information obtained from the first workshop was used to develop the
preliminary plan that would be presented that night. The results of the workshop were
presented and reviewed with the members present. The results of the voting follow on
the next page. Mr. Drayer also explained that the information we received from this
second workshop would be incorporated in the development of the Final Master Plan,
which is scheduled for July 12.
A preliminary plan was presented by Mr. Drayer and questions answered. The additional
comments to the preliminary plan included: deleting portion of path at southwest corner
connecting Arosa Way to park path; re-route southern access path at an angle to the
northwest; providing overhead structures at play areas; replacing tables with benches in
open turf area; and positioning site lights to prevent lighting of adjacent homes to the
southwest.
03�
VOTING BALLOT RESULTS
pQLN ROM%U:� PERK
MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1993
WORKSHOP #1
OVERALL SCHEME:
A
B
C
(9)
(2)
(1) DO NOT
SITE AMENITIES
PREFERRED LOCATION INCLUDE
Tot Play Area
A(17)
B(4)
C(1)
D(10)
Child Play Area
A(19)
B(4)
C(1)
D(9)
Sand Play Area
A(7)
D(20)
Basketball
A(3)
C(2)
D(10)
10 Plus Play Equipment
A(4)
C(2)
D(24)
Teen Swings
A(1)
D(27)
Game Court
B(3)
D(25)
Group Picnic
A(6)
B(4)
C(1)
D(20)
Picnic Tables
A(i 1)
B(4)
C(1)
D(15)
Game Tables
C
D(26)
Sand Volleyball
C(3)
D(23)
Turf Volleyball
B(3)
D(26)
Frisbee Golf
A(2)
D(27)
Exercise Course
B(5)
C
D(21)
Softball
B(2)
C(1)
D(25)
Soccer Field Overlay
C(1)
D(26)
Concrete Walks
B(3)
D(24)
Decomposed Granite Walks
A(16)
B(3)
C
D(11)
Perimeter Tree & Shrub Planting
A(17)
B(5)
C(3)
D(9)
Entry Sign Monument
A(1)
B0
C
D(28)
Additional Amenities/ldeas:All stuff for kids and young teens ok drainage problem no bbgs, split sand area
1 /2 sand 1/2 water play. There has to be some Place for our kids to play. Defer cost of storm drain revisions to Public
Works 112 basketball court in teen area Block wall or the like on south side something to block off south view. N
parking on Adams Take care of drains ASAP safety & heaHh issues Fence around park along Adams & mobile
home park Must have shade somewhere by child play area some kind of cover. Low level lighting no basketball,
no softball exercise course ok Very Tittle concrete no additional lighting No decomposed granite no lights (bright)
only footlights (dim) No pay phones Flowers & trees around Plan A picnic area Bench seats only to rest at. No teen
swings no frisbee golf. Less trees along Arosa and La Palma No picnic area instead spread out picnic tables around
area. Instead of sand areaput a water toy in Rs place.
40
03s
PALM ROYALE PARK VOTING BALLOT
Page Two
Theme SuggestlonS:No group activities dim lights only, low-key softball n pit area basketball in pit area. No
lights at night Want to discourage "the wrong crowd" at night Very quiet Lots of trees shrubs, perhaps gazebo, rose
garden, lots of shade. Scale down. Path should have a sin at entry.
Additional Cort mentS:New namel Traffic concerns pedestrian concerns crossing Adams. Lots of shade. Open
air azebo Safety lights Must have some type of lattice or gazebo in child play area. Too hot for small children.
Storm drain needs covering Want to keep it a neighborhood park only. Drains essential. No BBO's no lights. Fix
mosquito trap before doing anything No parking no sign very passive design Fix the drains address drainage from
roadway. Maintenance cost of park Low key area Drainage problem must be soled first. Fence to block trailer park.
Trees and fence on Adams No restrooms no basketball Streets In neighborhood need speed bumps (for safetV of
children). No night lighting other than for security. Use of decomposed granite.
,_ 033
LA PALMA DRIVE
7,7
5�
w. SuoF4S�iFFIa[ ALA: -.�
awswFer 1
I I.
rFP roraF
5e �--ufttYVtev alwlErfrx �'
N
Q 4
I
Clex nPv
CCYIE/BdPOEP a4N V
� � I OfUSEP OVMFSaIrf 0
¢E09E rO NPf FW[ VE
d
FE� 1
a.WMUEa /
rc IN, �
y
KOfFTIFx WOOF412P aO1vd1CN
(�I C�IIn 1lnM�l PT PLA9
PALM 0000 PARK
C.� ` a"t q, J' Quinrw
=.I
pIEM NPI
ME TAP
mi
Cpl1Kr( IA...IfIVAF
¢-- IFPOYIFP II1FF F SMI!
Fuxrwa rrx uwfc�rf eew
�4R
INDEX:
A. FINAL MASTER PLAN ILLUSTRATIVE
B. DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
Option A
Phase One:
Water Feature
Concrete Walks
Picnic Tables
Light to Play Area
Landscape Buffer on Adams and La Palma (Shrubs per Ph. 2)
Phase Two:
Decomposed Granite Walks
Balance of Site Lighting
Balance of Trees & Shrubs
Overhead Structure & Misting System
Benches
Landscape Buffer on South Side
Option B
Phase One:
Play Areas
Concrete Walks
Picnic Tables
Light to Play Area
Landscape Buffer on Adams and La Palma (Shrubs per Ph. 2)
Phase Two:
Decomposed Granite Walks
Balance of Site Lighting
Balance of Trees & Shrubs
Overhead Structure & Misting System
Benches
Landscape Buffer on South Side
C. OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS
Yfla PHAL MASTER PLAN
41
rc ro an r.rc.
Q
3
LA PALMA DRIVE
� - .xo,srwx r,me orx rww ora
n.cxe rco.n..x.m,s
_ —._ corurcr...ro roru. u.
>
W
W
Ir
N
Q
0
Q
' .rcuw�r.nxrri�.. z�u.ra
PALM R®YALE- .'-PARK
,2
LA PALMA
fRN.006MM-
�ry Lxouf Lf� y�IF� Mf
NON.IIYMNfN.OKII NONMM
__ NMRO NYf, f..NM I[Tl„
fwfc.aFfcu,n
PERIMETER TREE & SHRUB
PLANTING WITH LANDSCAPE BERM
(PER PH. 2)
(DEVELOPMENT C NT PHASING OPTION A)
PALM ADVAUM PARK
E4) �(T 4 ,(W aa&m
y
°I
• ..Y M1I.11 f.fI4ffJN.f.,
7=7
IgeL N,BNe•WWR
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
DATE: 24-Aug-93 PAGE: 1 OF 2
PROJECT: PALM ROYALE PARK
ESTIMATE BY:
ROGER DRAYER
PHASE I (OPTION A)
-�-
UNIT
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
QTY.
UNIT
COST
COST
CLEAR AND GRUB
23370
S.F.
$0.05
$1,169
CONSTRUCTION
PLAY GROUND
ALLOW
$40,000.00
$40,000
PLAY EQUIPMENT
PLAY AREA CONC CURB 12"x22"
230
L.F.
$20.00
$4,600
$9,000
FIBAR
3000
S.F.
$3.00
SITE FEATURES
2
EACH
$850.00
$1,700
PICNIC TABLE
TOT POOL W/FOUNTAIN
ALLOW
$10,000.00
$10,000
TRASH RECEPTACLE
6
EACH
$400.00
$150.00
$2,400
$600
TREE WELLS
DRINKING FOUNTAIN -HANDICAP
4
1
EACH
EACH
$1,700.00
$1,700
WALLS/FENCES
SPLIT FACED SEAT WALL
160
L.F.
$50.00
$8,000
HARDSCAPE
CONCRETE PAVING - 4"
2628
S.F.
$1.75
$4,599
COLORED CONCRETE W/
EXP. AGGREGATE FINISH
2O00
S.F.
$3.25
$6,500
LANDSCAPING
SOIL PREP/FINE GRADING
15800
S.F.
$0.18
$2,844
$632
90 DAY MAINTENANCE PERIOD
15800
4
S.F.
EACH
$0.04
$1,600.00
$6,400
DATE PALM - 8' B.T.
10
EACH
$575.00
$5,750
TREES (36" BOX)
GROUNDCOVER (12" O.C.)
11250
S.F.
$0.25
$2,813
$132
TURF HYDROSEED
3300
S.F.
$0.04
DG IN P.A. (ALLOW 10% OF
8
C.Y.
$42.00
$336
PA AT 2" THICK)
IRRIGATION/ WATER
AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM
15800
S.F.
$0.45
$7,110
LARGE AREAS ADJUSTED
LIGHTING/ ELECTRICAL
1
ALLOW
$4,000
$4,000
SERVICE/MAIN SWITCHBOARD
3
EACH
$1,500.00
$4,500
SECURITY WALKWAY/LIGHTS
,.._ 044
DATE: 24-Aug-93
PROJECT: PALM ROYALE PARK
PAGE: 2 OF 2
ESTIMATE BY: TIM MALONEY
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT COST COST
GRADING/ DRAINAGE
GRADING - SOIL IMPORT 200
DRY WELL 3
BOULDER DRAIN DIFFUSER/ 3
SCREEN
----------------------------------
SUBTOTAL
*** 5.00% CONTINGENCY
------------------------------
PHASE I GRAND TOTAL
---------------------------------------
A:930205-I.WK1 (D-9)
C.Y. $4.00 $800
EACH $3,000.00 $9,000
EACH $1,000.00 $3,000
$137,584
$6,879
-------------------
$144,463
n�h
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
DATE: 24-Aug-93 PAGE: 1 OF 1
PROJECT: PALM ROYALE PARK ESTIMATE BY: ROGER DRAYER
PHASE II (OPTION A)
----- - - ----=----
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT COST COST
CLEAR AND GRUB
39410 S.F. $0.05 $1,971
SITE FEATURES
DRINKING FOUNTAIN -HANDICAP
1
EACH
$1$400.00
,700
$1$800
BENCH
2
EACH
HARDSCAPE
MOWSTRIP 6"
360
L.F.
$6.00
$2,160
DG PATH
138
C.Y.
$42.00
$5,796
STEPS ,(CONC COLORED W/
SANDBLAST FINSIH)
80
L.F.
$10.50
$840
LANDSCAPING
SOIL PREP/FINE GRADING
30750
S.F.
$0.18
$5,535
$1,230
90 DAY MAINTENANCE PERIOD
30750
14
S.F.
EACH
$0.04
$250.00
$3,500
TREES (24" BOX)
TREES (15 GAL)
104
EACH
$85.00
$8,840
SHRUBS (1 GAL)
650
EACH
$4.00
$2,600
$2,18$508
GROUNDCOVER (12" O.C.)
$0.25
TURF HYDROSEED
18750
S.F.
DG IN P.A. (ALLOW 10% OF
21
C.Y.
$42.00
$882
PA AT 2" THICK)
IRRIGATION/ WATER
AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM
30750
S.F.
$0.45
$13,838
LARGE AREAS ADJUSTED
LIGHTING/ ELECTRICAL
SECURITY WALKWAY/LIGHTS
12
EACH
$1,500.00
$18,000
ADDITIVE ALTERNATES
2
EACH
$25,200.00
$50,400
OVERHEAD STRUCTURE
ALLOW
$12,000.00
$12,000
MISTING SYSTEM
----------------- -------------------------------------------------
*** SUBTOTAL W/ADDITIVE
ALTERNATES
------
$132,7 87
$6,639
*** 5.00% CONTINGENCY
-----------------------------------------------------------
*** PHASE II GRAND TOTAL $139,426
-------------------------------------------------------
A:930205-2.WK1 (D-9) �b 0 �4 F
trrn no. .
IfO[RIIYM MML OYFII ItO,Y pIM
PERIMETER TREE & SHRUB
PLANTING WITH LANDSCAPE BERM
(479 15 GALLON TREES IN TURF AREA FOR PHASE 1.
(DEVELOPMENT PHASING OPTION B)
FgIL0 0000 PARK
caxarnrtrw nrurMu:
5
e
y
Q�
O�
QI
' � �in_toMwntrr
NOTES: WATER FEATURE PER PH. 2
7I:.7
,�.
Ipnpy[Y[q 4M1NIB[1un � PbMI11(1
047
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
DATE: 24-Aug-93 PAGE: 1 OF 2
PROJECT: PALM ROYALE PARK ESTIMATE BY: ROGER DRAYER
PHASE I (OPTION B)
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT COST COST
CLEAR AND GRUB
23370
S.F.
$0.05
$1,169
CONSTRUCTION
PLAY GROUND
PLAY EQUIPMENT
ALLOW
$40,000.00
$40,000
PLAY AREA CONC CURB 12"x22"
230
L.F.
$20.00
$3.00
$4,600
$9,000
FIBAR
3000
S.F.
SITE FEATURES
2
EACH
$850.00
$1,700
PICNIC TABLE
6
EACH
$400.00
$2,400
TRASH RECEPTACLE
4
EACH
$150.00
$600
TREE WELLS
DRINKING FOUNTAIN -HANDICAP
1
EACH
$1,700.00
$1,700
WALLS/FENCES
SPLIT FACED SEAT WALL
160
L.F.
$50.00
$8,000
HARDSCAPE
CONCRETE PAVING - 4"
2628
S.F.
$1.75
$4,599
COLORED CONCRETE W/
EXP. AGGREGATE FINISH
2O00
S.F.
$3.25
$6,500
LANDSCAPING
SOIL PREP/FINE GRADING
15800
S.F.
$0.18
$2,844
$632
90 DAY MAINTENANCE PERIOD
15800
4
S.F.
EACH
$0.04
$1,600.00
$6,400
DATE PALM - 8' B.T.
TREES (36" BOX)
10
EACH
$575.00
$5,750
TREES (24" BOX)
9
EACH
$250.00
$85.00
$2,250
$6,630
TREES (15 GAL)
GROUNDCOVER (12" O.C.)
78
11250
EACH
S.F.
$0.25
$2,813
$132
TURF HYDROSEED
3300
S.F.
$0.04
DG IN P.A. (ALLOW 10e OF
8
C.Y.
$42.00
$336
PA AT 2" THICK)
IRRIGATION/ WATER
AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM
$0.45
$7,110
LARGE AREAS ADJUSTED
15800
S.F.
LIGHTING/ ELECTRICAL
1
ALLOW
$4,000
$4,000
SERVICE/MAIN SWITCHBOARD
3
EACH
$1,500.00
$4,500
SECURITY WALKWAY/LIGHTS
DATE: 24-Aug-93
PROJECT: PALM ROYALE PARK
PAGE: 2 OF 2
ESTIMATE BY: TIM MALONEY
--- --------------- --- ---- =---
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT COST COST
GRADING/ DRAINAGE
GRADING - SOIL IMPORT 200
DRY WELL 3
BOULDER DRAIN DIFFUSER/ 3
SCREEN
*** SUBTOTAL
*** 5.00% CONTINGENCY
*** PHASE I GRAND TOTAL
----------------------------
A:930205B2.WK1 (D-9)
C.Y. $4.00
EACH $3,000.00
EACH $1,000.00
$800
$9,000
$3,000
$136,464
$6,823
---------------
$143,287
n,4c
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
DATE: 25-Aug-93 PAGE: 1 OF 1
PROJECT: PALM ROYALE PARK ESTIMATE BY: ROGER DRAYER
PHASE II (OPTION B)
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT COST COST
CLEAR AND GRUB
39410 S.F. $0.05 $1,971
SITE FEATURES
DRINKING FOUNTAIN -HANDICAP
1
EACH
$1,700.00
$1,700
BENCH
2
EACH
$400.00
$800
TOT POOL W/FOUNTAIN
ALLOW
$10,000.00
$10,000
HARDSCAPE
MOWSTRIP 6"
360
L.F.
$6.00
$2,160
DG PATH
138
C.Y.
$42.00
$5,796
STEPS,(CONC COLORED W/
SANDBLAST FINSIH)
80
L.F.
$10.50
$840
LANDSCAPING
SOIL PREP/FINE GRADING
30750
S.F.
$0.18
$5,535
90 DAY MAINTENANCE PERIOD
30750
S.F.
$0.04
$250.00
$1,230
$2,250
TREES (24" BOX)
TREES (15 GAL)
9
26
EACH
EACH
$85.00
$2,210
SHRUBS (1 GAL)
650
EACH
$4.00
$2,600
$2,188
GROUNDCOVER (12" O.C.)
8750
S.F.
$0.25
$0.04
$508
TURF HYDROSEED
12700
S.F.
DG IN P.A. (ALLOW 10% OF
PA AT 2" THICK)
21
C.Y.
$42.00
$882
IRRIGATION/ WATER
AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM
30750
S.F.
$0.45
$13,838
LARGE AREAS ADJUSTED
LIGHTING/ ELECTRICAL
SECURITY WALKWAY/LIGHTS
12
EACH
$1,500.00
$18,000
ADDITIVE ALTERNATES
2
EACH
$25,200.00
$50,400
OVERHEAD STRUCTURE
ALLOW
$12,000.00
$12,000
MISTING SYSTEM
----------------- -------------------------------------------------
*** SUBTOTAL W/ADDITIVE ALTERNATES
-------
$134,9 07
$6,745
*** 5.00o CONTINGENCY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** PHASE II GRAND TOTAL
---------
$141,652
-------------------------------------------------------
A:930205-B.WK1 (D-9)
(%5f
PALM ROYALE PARK
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
LABOR COST
$0.18 per S.F. $ 37,244.00
(X 206,910 s-Q
SITE UTILITIES
Electricity $ 1,350.00
Water $ 8,100.00
EQUIPMENT NEEDS
$993.00 per acre $ 4,717.00
(X 4.75 acres)
MATERIAL NEEDS
$616.00 per acre $ 2,926.00
(X 4.75 acres)
Total annual operation maintenance costs $54,337.00
Monthly $ 4,528.00
Add an additional 10 % inflation for construction in 2 years $ 453.00
Monthly $ 4,981.00
.0W ,(A.II,)
z.i 051
IV. APPRENDICES
PALM ROYALE PARK MASTER PLAN
CITY OF LA QUINTA
P.O. Box 1504
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
(619) 777-7000
FAX (619) 777-7101
Clint Bohlen
T.I. MALONEY, INC.
6180 Brockton Avenue, Suite 201
Riverside, California 92506
(909) 369-0700
FAX (909) 369-4039
Tim Maloney
Roger Drayer
MEETINGS
Community Meeting 1 (3 Schematics) June 14
Community Meeting 2 (Preliminary Plan) June 28
Community Services Review (Master Plan) July 12
asoyale.lst (d-160)
053
PAflm RoyAlz pAnx
CITY OF LA QUINTA
WORKSHOP #1
I. INTRODUCTIONS
II. PROCESS
* WORKSHOP #1 -- JUNE 145 1993 (TODAY)
(PRESENT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES)
* WORKSHOP #2 -- JUNE 287 1993
(PRESENT MASTER PLAN)
* PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
* CITY COUNCIL
III. PRESENTATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
IV. DISCUSSION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
V. VOTING
c�5a d (E 10)
CITY OF LA QrrAUIN
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD
FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1993
SUBJECT: PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND DEVELOPER HANDOUTS
Attached is a draft copy of the plans submittal requirements for development applications. This
draft is a compilation of comments received from Design Review Board Members, staff input,
and current plan submittal requirements.
Also attached are copies of the presently utilized informational handouts for processing
procedures of applications. These can be utilized for a developers "Handbook" or as separate
handouts as they are presently used.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend that the Design Review Board review these items either at this meeting ="
or at your leisure for further review and action at the next Design Review Board meeting.
Attachments:
1. Draft copy of plan submittal requirements.
2. Copies of application handouts.
MEMOSS.173
DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES
APPLICATION PROCESS:
Plans shall include at a minimum the following items at the time of submittal:
1. Plot Plan: A plot plan drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, that shows the following:
A. Property line boundaries with dimensions.
B. Proposed buildings, structures, driveways, parking areas, service areas (including
trash areas), freestanding signs, utilities (proposed and existing), public art,
drainage structures, landscaping and hardscape areas, easements, etc.
C. Existing improvements and natural features which are proposed to be retained and
incorporated into the project.
D. Included on this plan shall be a vicinity map and project area size, building
square footage, hardscape (parking areas and walks) square footage, and
landscape square footage tabulations.
E. Shown on the plot plan shall be adjacent development within 200 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the property. This includes curb cuts across all streets as
well as on adjacent properties.
oocss.oii 1 ORA1107
�
2. Grading Plan: A preliminary grading plan, showing proposed pad, adjacent street,
parking lot, driveway, landscape, elevations, drainage patterns, dry wells, retention
areas, etc. Included shall be grade elevations for adjacent existing streets, and for
adjacent properties and buildings within 200 feet of the subject property.
3. Topography Plan: A plan showing the existing topography on the subject property. This
may be combined with the above preliminary grading plan (#2) if it can be shown
clearly.
4. Building Plans: Complete preliminary building plans shall be submitted as follows:
A. Fully dimensioned floor plans shall indicate all rooms including mechanical
rooms, vertical transportation, exit/service corridors, service areas, lobbies,
location of air conditioning condensors (even if located outside exterior walls),
etc.
B. Roof plans indicating pitch, any roof mounted mechanical equipment, skylights,
solar panels, trellis areas, columns, etc. Plans shall show outline of exterior
building walls with dimension of roof overhang from wall.
C. Elevation or exterior view of all sides of all buildings and structures, including
DOCSS. 011
interior courtyards, atriums, hidden exterior walls, etc. Heights of buildings, at
a
0.
maximum points, and other relevant heights shall be dimensioned and shown on
plans. Elevations shall indicate sign designs and locations or probable locations
and sizes of sign "envelopes", when appropriate. Elevation plans shall indicate
exterior material and finishes and be keyed to material sample boards.
D. A minimum of two section views at a scale of 1/2" = F-0" showing eave
overhangs, fenestrations, entrys, architectural projections, window areas, etc.
E. One set of subject property photographs (minimum 5" X 7") and surrounding
development shall be submitted as following:
1. One panoramic view of each side of the site.
2. Views of all relevant or unusual features of the site.
3. Views of all existing development on adjacent properties. Picture shall
include front elevation of development on adjacent properties.
5. Landscaping Plans: Fully annotated preliminary landscaping plan showing proposed
species, container sizes, spacing where appropriate (i.e., ground cover, annual flowers),
hardscape paving patterns and materials, site furnishings, etc.
Type of irrigation system (spray, emitter, and/or drip) shall be called out on plan.
Where more than one type is used, plan shall be provided indicating where each type is
DOCSS.O11 3 0R A F
0SC
used. Photographs of major plant species utilized, amenities and site furnishings shall
be submitted.
6. Sample Board: A material sample board showing all exterior materials, finishes, and
colors including hardscape (when decorative), shall be submitted on a maximum 9" X
13" heavily weighted cardboard. Materials, finishes, and colors shall be keyed to
elevation plans. For materials such as roof tile, decorative tile and trim, etc.,
photographs of said material in the field clearly showing textures shall be submitted.
DOCSS.011 4DRAF7
�J
sr
P 9 PLANNING DIVISION 1/88
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Properties in the City of La Quinta are classified into various
zones which are referred to as zoning districts. However, it
is sometimes necessary to change district boundaries. This is
called a Change of Zone (CZ).
Because zoning influences the way in which land can be used,
changes to the zoning map are carefully considered. The
following questions must be addressed when reviewing Change of
Zone requests:
o How does your request conform with the General Plan?
(An amendment to the General Plan will be necessary if
your request is not consistent. Refer to the .General
Plan Amendment handout.)-
0 what is the relationship between the proposed use of the
property and the surrounding uses?
o Why is the property not usable as presently zoned?
P R O C E D U R E
The following information explains
the process used for Change of Zone
requests:
STEP 1: Presubmission. It is
advised that you, together with your
architect, engineer, land planner,
etc., consult with the Planning Staff
prior to formal submission to clarify
the content of your request. The
Presubmission process is available to
you as one means to obtain development
information regarding your request.
(Refer to Presubmission handout.)
MR/HANDOUT.001 -1-
061
..t
PE'Rq�Td
Jt
R�
STEP 2: Application. A
Change of Zone application can
be obtained from the Planning
and Development Department. The
application identifies the
specific information and number
of copies required. Upon
submission of the application
and payment of necessary fees,
the application will be given a
cursory check. Your application
will be accepted for filing only
if the basic requirements have
been met.
Before the application is formally accepted as complete, a
detailed review will be conducted. You will be notified if
additional information is required. Your application will be
put on hold until this information is submitted. If no further
information is necessary, your application will be accepted as
complete and will be processed. (This should occur within 30
days.)
All Change of Zone applications are classified as "projects"
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and must
be evaluated for environmental impact. (Refer to the
Environmental Review handout).
STEP 3: Review Comments. Your application is sent to all
departments/agencies that have an interest in your proposal.
Their comments are requested by a certain date, or their
comments may be given during the scheduled Development Review
Committee meeting. (Refer to the Development Review Committee
handout.)
STEP 4: Planning DivisionReview. The Planning Staff will
review your application, visit the site, review other
departments'/agencies' comments and prepare a Staff Report.
This report will contain Staff findings and a recommendation
for Planning Commission consideration. The report will be
available to you and other interested parties prior to the
Public Hearing.
STEP 5: Public Review. A public notice of your proposed
Change of Zone will be published in the local newspaper and
sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the site.
Additional public notification may be required, depending upon
your site location. The Public Hearing Notice will provide
information on the date, time, and location of the meeting, and
a description of your request.
At the Public Hearing, the
your request, the Staff Report,
conclusion of the Hearing,
your request will be made to th
MR/HANDOUT.001
Planning Commission will consider
and public testimony. Upon
a recommendation to grant or deny
e City Council.
-2-
�O6A
STEP 6: City Council Review. The City Council ,:ill conduct
a Public Hearing on the request in the same manner as the
Planning Commission. The Change of Zone will be introduced as
an Ordinance for first reading. If the City Council approves
your request, the Ordinance will then be scheduled for the
second reading two weeks later.
If the City Council adopts the Change of Zone Ordinance at the
second reading, it becomes effective 30 days later.
Q U E S T I O N S
HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE FOR APPROVAL?
This depends on the following:
o Completeness of application;
o General Plan consistency;
.�
o Comments provided by other
departments/agencies;
o Environmental review; and
o Public Hearing process.�1r
Without a General Plan Amendment, it
could take as little as three months
;y
��+4
and as long as six months.
DOES A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR THE
PROPERTY HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE
CHANGE OF ZONE?�
No; however, the Planning Commission
and City Council are interested in
reviewing a complete project. The
more information on the Change of Zone
that is provided will help the
Commission/Council understand your
request.
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
The Change of Zone fee is $1,355. There is a fee for the
Environmental Assessment of $250 plus $3/gross acre, up to
$1,100. Other fees may be charged, depending upon the
request. Consult a current fee schedule.
N® She information provided in this handout is accurate
ae of the date ob. It is only a brief summary of
lnwfon tion contained !n City Ordinances. Therefore, it is a
good idea to Check with the Planning Staff to assure that your
proposal complies with Ordinance requirements.
MR/HANDOUT.001 -3-
06„
t
CITY OF LA QUINTA
78-105 Calla Estado
P.O. 80% I5O4
La Ouinta,CA.92253
P 7 PLANNING DIVISION 1/88
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Certain uses, because of their unique characteristics, cannot
be limited to or automatically included in all zoning
districts. These are called conditional uses (CUP). Each use
requires special consideration so that they are not detrimental
to surrounding properties, or the health, safety or general
welfare of the community. Conditions may be attached to assure
this protection.
mR/HANDOUT.003
P R O C E D U R E
The following information
explains the process used for
Conditional Use Permits:
STEP 1: Presubmission. It is
advised that you consult with
the Planning Staff prior to
formal submission to clarify the
content of your request. Staff
will identify information needed
regarding your request.
STEP 2: Application. A
Conditional Use Permit
application can be obtained from
the Planning and Development
Department. The application
identifies the specific
information and number of copies
required. Upon submission of
the application and payment of
necessary fees, the application
will be given a cursory check.
Your application will be
accepted for filing only if the
basic requirements have been met.
-1-
Before the application is formally accepted as complete, a
detailed review will be conducted. You will be notified if
additional information is required. Your application will be
put on hold until this information is submitted. If no further
information is necessary, your application will be accepted as
complete and will be processed. (This should occur within 30
days.)
All Conditional Use Permit applications are classified as
"projects" under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and must be evaluated for environmental impact. (Refer
to the Environmental Review handout).
STEP 3: Review Comments. Your application is sent to all
departments/agencies that have an interest in your proposal.
Their comments are requested by a certain date, or their
comments may be given during the scheduled Development Review
Committee meeting. (Refer to the Development Review Committee
handout.)
STEP 4: Planning Division Review. The Planning Staff will
review your application, visit the site, review other
departments'/agencies' comments and prepare a Staff Report.
This report will contain Staff findings and a recommendation
for Planning Commission consideration. The report will be
available to you and other interested parties prior to the
Public Hearing.
STEP 5: Public Review. A public
notice of your proposed Conditional
Use Permit will be published in the
local newspaper and sent to all
property owners within 300 feet of the
site. Additional public notification
may be required, depending upon your
site location. The Public Hearing
Notice will provide information on the
date, time, and location of the
meeting, and a description of your
request.
At the Public Hearing, the Planning
Commission will consider your request,
the Staff Report, and public
testimony. Upon conclusion of the
Hearing, the Planning Commission will make a decision to
approve, conditionally approve, or deny your request. The
Conditional Use Permit, if granted, is subject to conditions
necessary to protect the health, safety, or general welfare of
the community. Notice of the Planning Commission decision will
be filed with the City Council.
MR/HANDOUT.003 -2-
�.,_ 0sr
STEP 6: City Council Review. The decision of the Planning
Commission is final unless you or someone else appeals the
decision to the Council, or the City Council assumes
Jurisdiction over your request. The City Council will conduct
a Public Hearing if your request is before them. The noticing
requirement is the same used for the Planning Commission.
The City Council may concur with the Planning Commission,
reverse their decision, or modify their decision.
Your Conditional Use Permit, if granted, must be "used" within
one year or within the time limit noted in a condition. A
limited time extension may be granted.
"USED" means the beginning of substantial construction of the
use that is authorized, which construction must thereafter be
pursued diligently to completion, or the actual occupancy of
existing buildings or land under the term of the authorized
public use.
FLOWERS
1�
Q U E S T I O N S
HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE FOR APPROVAL?
This depends on the following:
o Completeness of the application
o Comments provided by other departments
o Environmental review
o Public Hearing process
It could take as little as two months and as long as six months.
MR/HANDOUT.003 -3-
,..*,:', 06F
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
The Conditional Use Permit fee is:
General: $1,695
Mobile Home Park, Recreational Vehicle Park: $1,695 + $12/site
There is a fee for the Environmental Assessment of $250 plus
$3/gross acre, up to $1,100.
Other fees may also be charged depending upon the request.
Consult a current fee schedule.
WILL I NEED ANY OTHER PERMITS?
A building permit is required if your proposal includes any
construction. Questions about these permits should be directed
to the Building Division of the Planning and Development
Department.
"NOTE: no Lnformatlon Provided le Leis eudout is Accurate
" of the &ate seavn. It to enl� • brief suaeasry of
information ecntal"d Is city ordin•ooes. rhorofore. It is •
pod 16e9 to ~k with tee Plannlny buff to "sure tbat dour
proposal ev Wiles with ordinaseo tepuirmasnts.
MR/HANDOUT.003 —4-
1 n_ n6,
'Y OF LA OUINTA
105 Colle Eetad0
P.O. BOX 1504
Oulnta,CA. 92253
(6J9) 564- 2246
p 1PLANNNG DIVISION 1/88
I N T R O D U C T I O N
The General Plan is the City's long-range policy document which
assists in the orderly development of the city. It is intended
to be a guide -- a foundation for tomorrow -- for the citizens,
developers, and elected representatives as they move toward the
future.
The General Plan is not intended to be
a static document which resists
change. Instead, amendments may be
made to assure responsiveness to
changing conditions and needs of the
City.
Therefore, as permitted by State
Government Code, the General Plan can
be amended. The Amendment Process is
limited to four per year. The same
process which was used for its
adoption must be used for any
amendment.
The City has established a three -cycle review process for
General Plan Amendments. Application submittal deadlines for
the three cycles are as follows:
o Cycle I
o Cycle II
o Cycle III
by December 15
by April 15
by August 15
The review time for each cycle depends upon the complexity of
the request and subsequent environmental review.
MR/HANDOUT.010
-1-
P R O C E D U R E
The following information explains the process used for General
Plan Amendment requests:
STEP 1: Contact the Planning and Development Department. It
is advised that you consult with the Planning Staff prior to
formal submission to clarify the content of your request.
Staff will provide you with needed information regarding your
request.
STEP 2: Application. A
General Plan Amendment
application can be obtained from
the Planning and Development
Department. The application
identifies the specific
information and number of copies
required. Upon submission of
the application and payment of
necessary fees, the application
will be given a cursory check.
Your application will be
accepted for filing only if the
basic requirements have been met.
Before the application is
formally accepted as complete, a
detailed review will be
conducted. You will be notified
if additional information is
required. Your application will
be put on hold until this
information is submitted. If no
further information is
necessary, your application will
be accepted as complete and will
be processed. (This should
occur within 30 days.)
All General Plan Amendment applications are classified as
"projects" under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and must be evaluated for environmental impact. (Refer
to the Environmental Review handout.)
STEP 3: Scoping Review. Your application will be submitted
for informal Planning Commission and City Council review. A
Staff Report will be presented to the Commission/Council
comparing your request with current policies/land uses and
other requests submitted during the review cycle.
The Commission/Council
on your request and may
request, or expand any
will identify concerns or make comments
initiate any amendment, expand your
related submittal.
MR/HANDOUT.010 -2-
'DISC
The following
request:
specific questions will be used to analyze your
o Does the proposed text and/or
map amendment improve the Plan
as a guide to achieving the
community goals?
o Does the amendment adversely
affect the environment of the
area?
o Does the amendment facilitate
the maintenance or improvement
of a balanced and logical land
use pattern?
o Does the amendment substantially
affect the level of service from
public facilities?
STEP 4: Review Comments. Your application is sent to all
departments/agencies that have an interest in your proposal.
Their comments are requested by a certain date, or their
comments may be submitted during the scheduled Development
Review Committee meeting. (Refer to the Development Review
Committee handout.)
newspaper and
the site.
depending upon
will provide
meeting, and a
STEP 5: Planning Division
Review. The Planning Staff
will review your application,
visit the site, review other
departments'/agencies' comments
and prepare a Staff Report.
This report will contain Staff
findings and a recommendation
for Planning Commission
consideration. The report will
be available to you and other
interested parties prior to the
Public Hearing.
STEP 6: Public Review. A
Public Hearing Notice of your
proposed General Plan Amendment
will be published in the local
sent to all property owners within 300 feet of
Additional public notification may be required,
your site location. The Public Hearing Notice
information on the date, time, and location of the
description of your request.
MR/HANDOUT.010 -3- 1�
Q 7r
At the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission a ll consider
your request, the Staff Report, and public testimony. Upon
conclusion of the Hearing, The Planning Commission will adopt a
Resolution recommending to the City Council approval or denial
of your request.
STEP 7: City Council Review. The City Council will conduct
a Public Hearing on the request in the same manner as the
Planning Commission. A City Council resolution amending the
General Plan will be approved if the Council concurs with your
request.
Q U E S T I O N S
HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE FOR APPROVAL?
This depends on the following:
o Completeness of application;
o Comments provided by other
departments/agencies;
o Environmental review; and
o Public Hearing process.
It could take as little as three
months and as long as six months.
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
The General Plan Amendment fee
is $1,870. There is a fee for
the Environmental Assessment of
$250 plus $3/gross acre, up to
$1,100. Other fees may be
charged, depending upon the
request. Consult a current fee
schedule.
NOTE: 'The information provided In this handout is accurate
as of the date shornit is only a brief sunnary of
i Information contained n city Ordinances. Therefore, it is a
good idea to check with the planning Staff to assure that your
proposal complies with Ordinance reguirsrnents.
MR/HANDOUT.010 -4-
"r, 0?1
�
k
THREE -CYCLE REVIEW
REVIEW STEPS FOR GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENTS
CYCLE I
CYCLE II
CYCLE III
1. Deadline for Applicant to File
Dec 15 _
April 15
Aug 15
General Plan Amendment Appl.
2. Staff Complete Review for
Early Jan
Early May
Early Sep
Completeness of Submitted
Applications.
3. Staff Report to Planning
Jan -
May -
Sep -
Commission on Submittals;
Mtg 01
Mtg O1
Mtg O1
PC Initiate Any Other Amend-
ments or Expand Submittals.
4. Staff Report to City Council
Jan -
May -
Sep -
on Submittals; CC Initiate
Mtg 02
Mtg 02
Mtg 02
Any Other Amendments or
Expand Submittals.
S. Deadline for Applicant to
Feb 1
June 1
Oct 1
have Submittal Deemed
Complete.
6. Transmittal for Agency
Early Feb
Early June
Early Oct
Comment
7. Deadline for Agency
Late Feb
Date June
Late Oct
Responses
S. Planning Commission Hearing
March -
July -
Nov -
Mtg O1
uty $1
Mtg 01
9. City Council Hearing
April -
Pugust.-
Dec --
Mtq ft
Mtg ;1
Mtg O1 '
%f
P 8 PLANNING, DIVISION 1/88
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Certain uses can be permitted within any zoning district, after
public review has been conducted. These are called Public
Uses. Each use requires that special considerations be given so
that they are not detrimental to the health, safety or general
welfare of the community. Any permit that is granted is
subject to conditions to insure that this is provided.
P R O C E D U R E
The following information explains the process used for Public
Use Permits:
STEP 1: Presubmission. It is
advised that you consult with the
Planning Staff prior to formal
submission to clarify the content of
your request. Staff will identify
information needed regarding your
request.
STEP 2: Application. A Public Use
Permit application can be obtained
from the Planning and Development
Department. The application
identifies the specific information
and number of copies required. Upon
submission of the application and
payment of necessary fees, the
application will be given a cursory
check. Your application will be
accepted for filing only if the basic
requirements have been met.
Before the application is formally accepted as complete, a
detailed review will be conducted. You will be notified if
additional information is required. Your application will be
put on hold until this information is submitted. If no further
MR/HANDOUT.005
-1-
information is necessary, your application will be accepted as
complete and will be processed. (This should occur within 30
days.)
All Public Use Permit applications are classified as "projects"
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and must
be evaluated for environmental impact. (Refer to the
Environmental Review handout).
STEP 3: Review Comments.
Your application is sent to all
departments/agencies that have
an interest in your proposal.
Their comments are requested by
a certain date, or their
comments may be submitted during
the scheduled Development Review
Committee meeting. (Refer to
the Development Review Committee
handout.)
STEP 4: Planning Division
Review. The Planning Staff
will review your application,
visit the site, review other
departments'/agencies' comments
and prepare a Staff Report. This
report will contain Staff
findings and a recommendation
for Planning Commission
consideration. The report will
be available to you and other
interested parties prior to the
Public Hearing.
STEP 5: Public Review. A public hearing notice of your
proposed Public Use Permit will be published in the local
newspaper and sent to all property owners within 300 feet of
the site. Additional public notification may be required,
depending upon your site location. The Public Hearing Notice
will provide information on the date, time, and location of the
meeting, and a description of your request.
At the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission will consider
your request, the Staff Report, and public testimony. Upon
conclusion of the Hearing, the Planning Commission will make a
decision. The Public Use Permit, if granted, is subject to
conditions necessary to protect the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community. Notice of the Planning Commission
decision must be filed with the City Council.
MR/HANDOUT.005 -2-
%C
STEP 6: City Council Review. The decision of the Planning
Commission is final unless you or someone else appeals the
decision to the Council, or the City Council assumes
jurisdiction over your request. The City Council will conduct
a Public Hearing if your request is before them. The noticing
requirement is the same used for the Planning Commission.
The City Council may concur with the Planning Commission,
reverse their decision, or modify their decision.
Your Public Use Permit, if granted, must be "used" within one
year or within the time limit noted in a condition. A limited
time extension may be granted.
"USED" means the beginning of substantial construction of the
use that is authorized, which construction must thereafter be
pursued diligently to completion, or the actual occupancy of
existing buildings or land under the term of the authorized
public use. -1 � % k I
Q U E S T I O N S
HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE FOR APPROVAL?
This depends on the following:
o Completeness of the application
o Comments provided by other
departments
o Environmental review
o Public Hearing process
It could take as little as two months
and as long as six months.
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
The Public Use Permit fee is
$1,425.
There is a fee for the
Environmental Assessment of $250
plus $3/gross acre, up to $1,100.
Other fees may also be charged
depending upon the request.
Consult a current fee schedule.
WILL I NEED ANY OTHER PERMITS?
A building permit is required if your proposal includes any
construction. Questions about these permits should be directed
to the Building Division of the Planning and Development
Department. �(�� 0 7 r
WO E: 171. Wca tic. yr.elaea 1. til. WNavt U eee.[.t
MR/HANDOUT.005 " 'f f°' "t• 4" , it.e 1. i, . Wier .men
�3- {.fot tu, pt.ln in city Otal"nCee. S rat . It 4
"" 1l.. to e k .1tn the ,le"lM .1tn .tet1
�.apel .e;llu oml"nee rpustat ..
TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP
p 15 PLANNING DIVISION
I N T R O D U C T I O N
CITY OF LAAUINTA
78-105 Calls Eetodo
P.O. BOX 1504
La Ouinto,CA. 82253
� (619) 564 - 2240
t/88
A subdivision is when you, the owner, or your representative,
proposes to divide vacant or improved land within the City into
lots or parcels for the purpose of sale, lease, gift or
financing, now or in the future.
There are two types of subdivisions: Tract Map and Parcel
Map. Each type is processed in two phases, tentative and
final. The first phase involves the review and approval of the
map; the second phase is the approval and recordation of the
map. The requirements and procedures for subdivisions are
established both by State Government Codes and by City Codes.
MR/HANDOUT-006
P R O C E D U R E
The following information
explains the process used to
obtain approval for a Tentative
Tract Map.
STEP 1: Process Determination.
The Tentative Tract Map Process
must be used when you propose to
create five or more:
-1-
o Land parcels/lots
o Condominium units
o Parcels/lots for a
community apartment
project
o Units in the
conversion of a
dwelling to a stock
cooperative
0 7P
The process does not apply when:
Cam]
U
R
E.
W
The land is divided into four or less parcels/lots;
or,
The land before division:
o Contains less than five acres; and,
o Has each proposed parcel/lot abutting upon a
maintained public street or highway; and,
o Requires no road dedication or improvements;
or,
Each proposed parcel/lot has:
o A gross area of 20 acres and not more than 40
acres; and,
o An approved access to a maintained public
street or highway; or,
The land:
o Consists of a parcel/lot or parcels/lots
having approved access to a public street or
highway;
o Is part of a tract zoned for industrial or
commercial development; and
o Is approved as to street alignment and width;
or,
Each parcel/lot created:
o Has a gross area of 40 acres or more; and
o Is not less than a quarter of a quarter
section.
STEP 2: PRESUBMISSION. Now that
you have determined your subdivision
will be processed as a Tentative Tract
Map, it is advisable that you,
together with your engineer or land
planner, etc., consult with the
Planning Staff prior to formal
submission to clarify the content of
your request. The Presubmission
Process is available to you as one
means to obtain development
information regarding your request.
(Refer to Presubmission handout.)
STEP 3: APPLICATION. A Tentative Tract Map Application can
be obtained opment eartmet. The
application fidentifies anthe specining and fic linformation ndnnumber of
copies required.
Before you submit your application, you must obtain a tract
number from the County Road Commission. Your map will be
identified throughout the review process using this number.
Upon submission of the application and payment of necessary
fees, the application will be given a cursory check. Your
application will be accepted for filing only if the basic
requirements have been met.
MR/HANDOUT.006 -2- +s
f
Before the application is formally accepted as complete, a
detailed review will be conducted. You will be notified if
additional information is required. Your application will be
put on hold until this information is submitted. If no further
information is necessary, your application will be accepted as
complete and will be processed. (This should occur within 30
days.)
All Tentative Tract Map applications are classified as
"projects" under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and must be evaluated for environmental impact. (Refer
to the Environmental Review handout.)
STEP 4: REVIEW COMMENTS. Your application is sent to all
departments/agencies that have an interest in your proposal.
Their comments are requested by a certain date, or their
comments may be given during the scheduled Development Review
Committee meeting. (Refer to the Development Review Committee
handout.)
STEP 5: PLANNING DIVISION REVIEW.
The Planning Staff will review your
application, visit the site, review
other departments'/agencies' comments
and prepare a Staff Report. This
report will contain Staff findings and
a recommendation for Planning
Commission consideration. The report
will be available to you and other
interested parties prior to the Public
Hearing.
STEP 6: APPROVED FINDINGS. Tentative Tract Maps can only be
approved when the proposed land division design and
improvements are:
o Consistent with the applicable general and specific
plans.
o Physically suitable for the development and
proposed density.
o Not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage.
o Not likely to substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
o Not likely to cause serious public health problems.
o Providing adequate public easements.
STEP 7: PUBLIC REVIEW. A Public Hearing Notice of your
proposed Tentative Tract Map will be published in the local
newspaper and sent to all property owners within 300 feet of
the site. Additional public notification may be required,
depending upon your site location. The Public Hearing Notice
will provide information on the date, time, and location of the
meeting, and a description of the request.
MR/HANDOUT.006 -3-
At the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission will consider
your request, the Staff Report, and public testimony. Upon
conclusion of the Hearing, a recommendation will be made to the
City Council to approve, conditionally approve, or deny your
request.
STEP 8: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW.
The City Council will conduct a
Public Hearing on your request
in the same manner as the
Planning Commission.
If the City Council approves,
conditionally approves, or
denies your Tentative Tract Map,
a Resolution confirming their
decision will be adopted.
You have two years in which to
record your approved or
conditionally approved map.
Unless, 30 days prior to the
expiration date, you file, with
appropriate fee, a written
request for a time extension.
Only two one-year extensions may
be granted.
Q U E S T I O N S
HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE FOR APPROVAL?
This depends on the following:
o Completeness of the application
o Comments provided by other departments
o Environmental review
o Public Hearing process
It could take as little as two months and as long as six months.
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
The Tentative Tract Map fee is $1,590 plus $12 per lot and $10
per acre. There is a fee for the Environmental Assessment of
$250 plus $3/gross acre, up to $1,100. Other fees may also be
charged depending upon the request. Consult a current fee -
schedule.
NOTE: ,2to Lae tlau 9 o 16" u t!!a ruawt u aRaraa
u of th Yu a0aau. It is way a trla[ a r[ of
woe tlm t tala L City Orft u . Errs[era, it is a
ye07 la,a to CDat! .Su t0 'Saauu! !tar to "aura Y t Jr
poyaaal espliu •lu tRdla t.Wltmu.
MR/HANMUT.006 -4-
970
•�--�- -,��- VARIANCE
dE
•�v Of
P 10
PLANNING DIVISION
I N T R O D U C T I O N
CITYOF
Le LAQUINTA
ad0
2253
678-IOS Calla Es
P.O. 80x 150
Culnta,CA.8
(619) 564-22
A "variance" is a modification which permits minor changes of
the zoning regulations when your property is uniquely burdened
by the strict enforcement of these regulations. The amount
that can be varied is limited to the minimum change necessary
to overcome the site development problem. A variance does not
include the substitution of uses assigned to your property by
the zoning district.
Site development problems or special
circumstances that can be considered
include:
Size
Shape
Topography
Location
Surroundings
The variance is limited to
modification of development standards
such as:
o Lot Size
o Lot Coverage
o Yards
o Parking Requirements
O Landscape
P R O C E D U R E
The following information explains the process used for
variance requests:
STEP 1: Presubmission. It is advised that you consult with
the Planning Staff prior to formal submission to clarify
the
content of your request. Staff will identify information
needed regarding your request.
MR/HANDOUT.002
-I-
J
STEP 2: Application. A
variance application can be
obtained from the Planning and
Development Department. The
application identifies the
specific information and number
of copies required. Upon
submission of the application
and payment of necessary fees,
the application will be given a
cursory check. Your application
will be accepted for filing only
if the basic requirements have
been met.
Before the application is
formally accepted as complete, a
detailed review will be
conducted. You will be notified
if additional information is
required. Your application will
be put on hold until this
information is submitted. if no
further information is
necessary, your application will
be accepted as complete and will
be processed. (This should
occur within 30 days.)
All variance applications are classified as "projects" under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and must be
evaluated for. environmental impact. (Refer to the
Environmental Review handout).
STEP 3: Review Comments. Your application is sent to all
departments that have an interest in your request for
comments. Upon receipt of their comments, a Staff Report will
be prepared. The report will be available to you and other
interested parties prior to the Public Hearing.
STEP 4: Planning Division Review. The Planning Staff will
review your application, visit the site, review other
departments'/agencies' comments and prepare a Staff Report.
This report will contain Staff findings and a recommendation
for Planning Commission consideration. The report will be
available to you and other interested parties prior to the
Public Hearing.
STEP 5: Public Review. A public notice of your proposed
variance will be published in the local newspaper and sent to
all property owners within 300 feet of the site. Additional
public notification may be required, depending upon your site
location. The Public Hearing Notice will provide information
on the date, time, and location of the meeting, and a
description of your request.
mR/HANDOUT.002 -2-
?S1
At the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission will consider
your request, the Staff Report, and public testimony.
Upon conclusion of the Hearing, the Planning Commission will
make a decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny your
request. The variance, if granted, is subject to such
conditions as are necessary so that it does not constitute a
grant of special privileges. Notice of the Planning Commission
decision will be filed with the City Council.
STEP 6: City Council Review. The decision of the Planning
Commission is final unless you or someone else appeals the
decision to the Council, or the City Council assumes
jurisdiction over your request. The City Council will conduct
a Public Hearing if your request is before them. The noticing
requirement is the same used for the Planning Commission.
The City Council may concur with the Planning Commission,
reverse their decision, or modify their decision.
Your variance, if granted, must be "used" within one year or
within the time limit noted in a condition. A limited time
extension may be granted.
"USED!' means the beginning of substantial construction of the
use that is authorized, which construction must thereafter be
pursued diligently to completion , or the actual occupancy of
existing buildings or land under the term fo the authorized
public use.
Q U E S T I O N S
HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE FOR APPROVAL?
This depends on the following:
o Completeness of the application
o Comments provided by other
departments
o Environmental review
o Public Hearing process
It could take as little as two months
and as long as six months.
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
The variance fee is:
o when filed alone ............. $1,225
o when filed with
another application .......... $ 550
There is a fee for the Environmental Assessment of $250 plus
$3/gross acre, up to $1,100. NOTE
the "tfeleatim rreelsas Is this haeest is stsvat.
MR/HANDOUT. 002 —3— { fetfttiim mrtaiea!"lo city ordlao... 11ta..e es.. It 1, .
yeas 1Ma to eh.et with rise"" staff to Beare seat your
rrapetal ev p11.0 with otale.eee taWlrrnte.
DV�
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
September 1, 1993
I. CALL TO ORDER
5:30 P.M.
A. Chairman Curtis brought the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. and Boardmember
Wright led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Present: Boardmembers Fred Rice, David Harbison, Randall Wright, James
Campbell, Planning Commission Representative Abels, and Chairman Curtis.
Boardmembers Campbell/Harbison moved to excuse Boardmember Anderson.
Unanimously approved.
B. Staff present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa,
Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Conditional Use Permit 93-008 and Variance 93-023; a request of Augustin
Martinez (La Quinta Meat Market) for approval to remodel and enlarge an
existing 1,581 square foot one story commercial building and a request to vary
from the C-V-N zoning district standards (street sideyard setback) and modify the
City's Off -Street Parking requirements for a building located on the northeast
corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas.
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. It was noted that Boardmember Anderson had
submitted written comments on the project.
DRB9-1
2. Chairman Curtis asked if the applicant wished to address the Board. Mr.
Charles Garland, architect for the project, informed the members that he
had just started working with the applicant and had not had an opportunity
to prepare additional drawings for the Board. Following discussion with
1
Design Review Board Minutes
September 1, 1993
the Board regarding the lack of information on the drawings, Mr. Garland
asked that the Board continue his project to the next Design Review Board
meeting to give him time to prepare adequate drawings.
3. Planning Commissioner Abels/Boardmember Rice moved and seconded a
motion to continue Conditional Use Permit 93-008 and Variance 93-023
to October 6, 1993. Unanimously approved.
B. Sian Application 93-215• Laguna de ]a Paz Subdivision; a request for approval
of a permanent monument sign on Washington Street north of Eisenhower Drive.
DRB9-1
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. It was noted that Boardmember Anderson
submitted written comments.
2. Boardmember Campbell stated his concern that the plans were distributed
to the Board without complete information showing the details they need
to make a decision on the project.
3. Mr. Jeff Petrus, representing the applicant, explained the sign lettering to
the Board. Boardmembers asked questions concerning the lettering,
colors, and manner in which the letters would be attached and the way the
edges would be finished. Mr. Petrus stated the letters would be made of
baked aluminum (painted teal) in a teal color, and would be attached flat
to the slumpstone and the edges would be capped similar to the perimeter
block wall with a radius edge.
4. Boardmember Wright asked Mr. Petrus to explain why he wanted to sand
the slumpstone and eliminate the effect of the slumpstone. Mr. Petrus
stated only the area where the letters would be mounted would be sanded
so the letters would lay flat against the stone.
5. Boardmember Wright stated his confusion regarding the dimensions of the
drawing submitted. He questioned how large the sign was and from
where. Mr. Petrus stated it was five feet at its widest point and they
would build upon the footing (±20 square feet).
6. Boardmember Wright asked how many courses of slumpstone masonry
block would be used. Mr. Petrus stated there would be ten courses above
grade with the cap on top, and the widest part would be five feet wide.
2
116�
Design Review Board Minutes
September 1, 1993
7. Boardmember Campbell stated he had no problem with the applicant's
intent, but reiterated that he was unable to respond to the sign with the
information on the drawing. Mr. Petrus stated he felt everything was
shown on his drawing except the manner in which the letters would be
attached. Discussion followed regarding an explanation of the drawing.
8. Chairman Curtis asked if Mr. Petrus was going to build the sign as it was
drawn on the drawings. Mr. Petrus stated he would build the sign
according to Code as he felt the drawings showed. Members stated they
understood what the applicant intended to do, but they did not have the
working drawings to approve. Boardmember Rice stated he would have
no objection to approving the sign if the applicant would submit a
complete drawing to staff. Discussion followed with Mr. Petrus regarding
the applicant's intent for the project.
9. Following discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Rice and seconded
by Planning Commissioner Abels to approve Sign Application 93-213 as
submitted with the condition that the applicant submit a complete set of
drawings to staff before a building permit is issued. Unanimously
approved.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
Chairman Curtis asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of August 4, 1993.
Boardmember Harbison asked that on Page 5, paragraph 10 the word "cavity" be
changed to "canyon", and on Page 10, paragraph 5 add the words "to be" to the sentence
"...thrown onto the trees and large headers...". There being no further corrections it was
moved and seconded by Boardmembers Harbison/Campbell to approve the Minutes as
corrected. Unanimously approved.
V. OTHER
A. Chairman Curtis asked if there were any other matters to discuss. Boardmember
Campbell stated his concern that staff see that complete drawings are presented
to the Board for review. He further asked if there was not a checklist given to
the applicants when they filed their applications. Staff stated that this list was
being worked on by the Design Review Board and at present there was no
checklist. Staff hoped to have this information before the Board at their next
meeting. Discussion followed regarding what information the Board wanted to
see and the problems staff faced in keeping the projects moving forward.
DRB9-1
3
Gg.4
Design Review Board Minutes
September 1, 1993
B. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell asked the Board for their opinion on the use of
a trellis colonnade instead of a tile roof for the La Quinta Meat Market project.
Following discussion, Chairman Curtis stated he did not feel it was the
responsibility of the Board to design a building for the applicant. They should
only recommend approval or deny a project based on its suitability for the City
and area in which it is proposed.
C. Chairman Curtis asked the Board how they felt about submitting their first
minutes in the new City Hall (August 4, 1993) for the time capsule as requested
by the City Council. Discussion followed regarding what some members had
already submitted. The August 4, 1993 minutes of the Design Review Board
would be submitted to the City Council for their consideration for inclusion in the
time capsule.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Rice/Campbell to adjourn to a regular meeting
of the Design Review Board on October 6, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta
Design Review Board was adjourned at 6:30 P.M., September 1, 1993.
DRB9-1
4