Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2012 05 08 PC
City of La Quinta Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.orn PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California MAY 8, 2012 7:00 P.M. 11 **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2012-011 Beginning Minute Motion 2012-003 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. Ill. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 24, 2012. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. A. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant........... AV Construction Location............ North Side of Avenue 58, ± 1 /4 Mile West of Madison Street Request ............. Consideration for Approval of Four (4) New Architectural and Unit Landscaping Plans for Alta Verde Coral Mountain (Formerly Pasatiempo); Tract 34243. Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution Recommending Approval — SDP 2006-863, Amendment #1- Resolution 2012- VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on City Council meeting of May 1, 2012. B. Commissioner Wright is scheduled to attend the May 15, 2012, City Council meeting. IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS: X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on May 22, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, May 8, 2012 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on Thursday, May 3, 2012. DATED: May 3, 2012 CAROL N WALKER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California Public Notices The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quints, CA April 24, 2012 I. CALL TO ORDER A. A regular meeting of the La Qu order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairmjd PRESENT: Chairman ABSENT: None .. Weber, 7:03 p.m. was called to Wright, and STAFF PRESENT:Tosm. Ditor Johnson, Planning Manager r, incipal Planner Andrew rT,.. Ex 've Secretary Carolyn II. PUBLIC COMIJI,5 : III. CC NNE. 10N IV. SENT CA .. i no corRnts, douggestions, it was moved by Commissioners :r to a 011 ve the minutes of April 10, 2012, as submitted. L V. PUBLIC H A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-107: a request by the City of La Quinta for consideration of the following amendments to the La Quinta Municipal Code: A provision to allow outdoor sales and display at retail stores greater than 100,000 GFA (§9.100.120), modify the permitted frequency of sidewalk sales and commercial events 09.100.130) located City-wide. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 Principal Planner Mogensen presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. He also noted staff had received e-mail comments from Lowe's after the packets had been distributed. The information was distributed to the Commissioners at the meeting. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Weber asked if the letter from Lowe's, stating their position, was from the local store manager, or the Corporate Headquarters. Staff responded the representative from Lowe's that provided the letter, was in audience and could answer that Commissioner Weber asked what basis staff used for the language in the amendment; e.g., nearby cities or the American Planning Association (APA). Staff responded they started the research by looking at nearby, and regional, communities and did not base their research on any national APA standard. They took the best of all the ordinances they researched and came up with a hybrid of the best of those. Commissioner Weber said it appeared the amendment was a combination of staff's determination of best practices. Planning Director Johnson said they also took into consideration the City's existing retailers; most notably Home Depot and Lowe's. Staff looked at what other communities were doing but also wanted to find a fair and equitable balance to what was currently occurring at both of those establishments. Chairman Alderson asked staff if they had met with the store representatives when they were drafting this Amendment. Staff responded they had met with Lowe's representatives and gave some background information on Code Compliance's efforts on dealing with the outdoor display of merchandise; and the City's latest interaction with Lowe's on this matter. Staff did provide the staff report and the information to Costco, Wal-Mart, and Home Depot -2- Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 representatives, but no extended amount of time was spent interacting with them. Commissioner Barrows asked staff for clarification of the letter from Lowe's regarding the reference to outdoor storage yards being screened. Her comment was she assumed that a display of merchandise was not considered an outdoor storage yard. Staff responded the current code does reference the necessity of screening; unless it is for a sidewalk sale. Staff was not sure what the letter was referring to because this code amendment did not reference anywhere that the outdoor display and sales had to be screened. Commissioner Barrows said she would wait for the public hearing portion of the meeting to hear the explanation from the Lowe's representatives. Commissioner Wilkinson asked for more clarification on the setback requirements; i.e., distance from the building and the street. Staff responded the Code Amendment identified outdoor sales and display areas were permitted within designated portions of sidewalk, patios and similar areas within proximity to the store front. The exact location would be reviewed by the Commission on a case -by -case basis. It was broadly written because not every store had the same layout. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on a previous approval allowing golf carts in close proximity to the street and wondered if this would cause an inconsistency with other retailers' outdoor display of products. Planning Director Johnson responded they did not feel it was imperative for staff to define that distance. It needed to be reviewed through the conditional use permit process on a case -by -case basis. If the conditional use permit was granted there would be a map or an exhibit identifying those display areas and the recipient of that permit would be required to stay within the perimeters of those specific areas. W11 Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the approval would be up to six times a year, or just one time when their area is defined and then the applicant would get over-the-counter approval from staff. Planning Director Johnson said there were two elements to this Amendment. The first part would be a permanent allowance where the applicant would get a conditional use permit and be able to utilize those display areas; and secondly, the potential for seasonal sales to occur as well. This Amendment addressed two items: permanent outdoor display areas and the allowance for greater flexibility for other displays that are currently being allowed through the temporary use permit process; which would actually be more accommodating to businesses. Commissioner Wright said this appeared to be pretty much big box driven and asked if staff had received requests from small or medium- sized businesses such as those in the Village. Principal Planner Mogensen said staff had received inquiries from smaller businesses in the Village and that was why the sidewalk sale item had been expanded. He then explained those were two different types of retailers; which was why there were two different sections of the ordinance -- the sidewalk sale -type of event and the permanent display. Planning Director Johnson added the Council had recently taken action on interim measures for a -board signs and outdoor display. He advised the Commissioner that issue might be coming for review within the next few months and may result in additional outdoor display provisions for the smaller retailers in the community. The focus, right now, was on the larger, big box retailers as well as allowing greater frequency for the seasonal sales. Commissioner Barrows said the issue of walls seemed to stand out when she was reviewing this, but on item D it stated an outdoor sale and display area needed to be fenced; which could include fence or wall. However, on page 7 item E there was a reference to outdoor display and sales for large commercial retail which was under the conditional use permit. Staff responded Section D referred to nursery/garden supply stores specifically. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 Commissioner Barrows commented that what would apply, as far as Lowe's was concerned, was item E; which was a conditional use permit which would be reviewed on a case -by -case recommendation from staff to the Planning Commission. Chairman Alderson commented on Page 6, under item 3.B.; walls and wall construction. He stated there was a reference to metal siding and said it or any other dangerous materials would obviously not be allowed and would probably be reviewed in the conditional use process. However, if not he recommended language be added that excluded any metal siding, or any materials potentially injurious to the general public. He also recommended on page 11, item 3, the phrase be corrected to read "adequate and legal pedestrian access be maintained". There being no further questions of staff, and the City being the applicant, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment and invited the author of the Lowe's letter to address the Commission. Mr. Jim Manion, (Corporate Real Estate and Construction Department) Director of Design & Engineering, Lowe's HIW, Inc., 1530 Faraday Ave #140, Carlsbad CA 92008, and Jesus Uccles, Store Manager, Lowe's HIW, Inc. 78-865 Highway 111, La Quinta CA introduced themselves and said they were available to answer any questions. Chairman Alderson asked the Lowe's representatives to state the concerns they had that prompted their letter. Mr. Manion said when they received the staff report; they may have misread it and needed some clarification. They understood that the display of merchandise in front of the store had to be in a designated area, but would additionally have to be screened by some kind of wall. Since they might have misinterpreted that they requested their letter be withdrawn because if that was not the intent they were okay with everything else. Staff stated exhibit E was a separate section that only applied to outdoor retail sales and display for stores of 100,000 square feet or greater and did not have a screening requirement. -5- Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 Mr. Manion responded they would withdraw their letter, but he did have another question about the contractor trailers being sold in the parking lot. They asked for clarification on how the City would treat the contractor trailers and shed displays, with the proposed ordinance. Planning Director Johnson said those were really two different items. He commented on a conversation staff had with Lowe's when they made application, due to a code enforcement matter prompting this change, because the current provisions were quite restrictive. One facet of the conversation focused on storage sheds out in the parking lots, within parking stalls that were defined and established for the purpose of parking customers. Staff's initial concern was if it's designated for parking it needs to be used for parking and not for display of merchandise and that position has not changed. If it's going to be identified for merchandise display then it needs to be designated as such and not be confused with parking stalls with merchandise on them. The exception being if it is utilized for seasonal displays such as Christmas tree lots. Staff continued that would be something that would be reviewed through the conditional use permit process. The one unique anomaly staff is still grappling with is Lowe's sales of utility trailers utilizing parking stalls. Staff's position is neutral and they have acknowledged Lowe's concern, but no permanent solution has been reached as yet. Staff is concerned with the utilization of multiple parking spaces for the storage and permanent display of merchandise. But, the code provision before you shows that we are supportive of reviewing the seasonal use of the parking lot in certain areas, through the use of a temporary use permit Mr. Manion commented that could be discussed at a later date, since it is not being addressed in this Amendment. He suggested future discussion could possibly include the suggestion that if Lowe's could show, through a parking study, that designed areas could be removed from the overall parking and still leave adequate parking for customers; then it would be possible for them to apply for, through the conditional use permit process, an allowance for the sheds and the contractor trailers to remain in the parking lot. Staff said yes that could be considered, noting that Lowe's, Home Depot, and Costco currently had more parking than the minimum requirements. The City is certainly willing to work with those Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 businesses. However, if it became permanent storage, whether trailers or sheds, it really needs to be taken out of the equation as being parking spaces. They should be designated for merchandise display and addressed accordingly through the conditional use permit process. Mr. Manion said, with those clarifications, he was satisfied with the code as it was proposed. Mr. Manion then commented that this Amendment had also addressed his concern regarding the garden center screening. Principal Planner Mogensen explained that, under the proposed code, they would be allowed to have garden center materials out in the display area, in addition to their current garden center, and that would be covered by a different section of this same chapter which is not being edited at this meeting. Commissioner Weber asked the Lowe's representatives if they had any statistics, or anecdotal evidence of how parking lot displays, of these selected products, affect their sales. Mr. Uccles described their experience with customers not wanting to purchase these items from catalogs. He said customers want to see the sheds and visualize how they will fit in with their homes and landscaping. The same things would apply for the trailers. People want to see and touch the product and walk around it. Sometimes there are different sizes or materials, they're made of, and the customers want to see them displayed. He also added the amount of trailers varies since they are replenished as the customers purchase them. Permanent placement of the trailers would be designated in an area where they would not interfere with traffic. Mr. Manion added that if they could not display the sheds their sales of sheds would be cut 75% or more. Unless the customer can see the particular product they are not going to purchase it. General discussion followed on where Lowe's currently has their sheds displayed. The public hearing portion of the meeting was still open and Chairman Alderson asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on the matter. -7- Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 Mr. Kyle Goodsell, Assistant Store Manager, Home Depot, 79-900 Highway 111, La Quinta CA, said they had previously submitted sales figures on their sheds and outdoor merchandise display (in reference to Commissioner Weber's earlier question). Commissioner Barrows asked if he had any concerns with what was being proposed. Mr. Goodsell said they were attending because they needed to hear the interpretation regarding the screening of garden products, but that was clarified. Commissioner Weber asked Mr. Goodsell about their utilization of a large part of the parking area which impacted egress into the shopping center and cut down that area from two lanes to one to get over to the traffic signal for exiting onto Jefferson Street. Mr. Goodsell said that area is in their map for temporary seasonal use. He added that they applied for, and have been granted, temporary permits for this use. General discussion followed on the definition of temporary use, the time frame, seasonal items, when the area in question would be cleared. Mr. Goodsell added they also had the same questions about sheds as the Lowe's representatives. They have sheds displayed in their parking lot right in front of their garden center and were attending the meeting to find out whether those sheds would be allowed in the future. General discussion followed on outdoor display items and rotation of product. There being no further public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Weber commented on the direction the City was going, how the stores appeared to be doing well, egress to the facilities, health, safety, ADA issues, abundance of parking spaces available at these locations, and how the City and the retailers were moving forward. -8- Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 Commissioner Barrows commented that if a nursery/garden supply store were to locate in La Quinta they would not be afforded the same opportunity as the big box retailers with regard to outdoor displays of plant materials; due to the requirement to have a wall or fence around those materials. She was concerned that this did not seem quite consistent. Staff then explained why they did not change Item D; and gave a further explanation of how the big boxes and nursery/garden supply stores were affected by this Amendment. Staff added they could revisit Item D if it was the Commissioner's wish. It could be brought back at a later date, but the staff focus for this meeting was to address the current situation in the community and not a future nursery/garden supply situation. Commissioner Barrows said she did want to see that fixed, at the appropriate time, in the future. She had an additional question about the parking lots as noted in item 2.13. where it said "you can't impede the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or obstruct access to any parking space." She was concerned that the inclusion of the outdoor display could cause them to be out of compliance right from the start. Staff responded they would have to propose improvements to make sure that it was a safe connection and would not "...impede the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic,... etc." If they wanted to create a permanent display area, they would have to make sure that there was a means of access that was an accepted means. General discussion followed regarding a safe and compliant environment for placement of outdoor merchandise; e.g., trailers/sheds, the process of review of use permits by several departments, and designated routes to/from the displays. Commissioner Wright complimented the City on its willingness to work with retailers, in this tough economic environment, as it continued to strive for an aesthetically -pleasing environment while keeping public safety a priority. Chairman Alderson concurred with Commissioner Wright's comments and added that he applauded the level of cooperation from both the retail community and the City. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution 2012-009 recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-107 as submitted; with the following amendment: Exhibit B, Section C.3 shall be amended to read: Adequate and legal pedestrian access shall be maintained around merchandise or displays placed on a sidewalk or walkway. Unanimously approved. B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-108: a request by the City of La Quinta for consideration of the following amendment to the La Quinta Municipal Code: A provision to require a Specific Plan for any new development on a lot that is '/2 acre or greater in size and located within the Village Commercial District (§9.65). Planner Manager Sawyer presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff Commissioner Weber asked if the owner was the housing authority or the subsequent, successor agency. Commissioner Wright responded it was the housing authority. General discussion followed on acquisition of the land, ownership, zoning of the properties, Council directives and language provisions for exceptions. Commissioner Weber asked if this strategy would be utilized in other areas within the City. Staff responded not at this time. Chairman Alderson commented on how this might first appear to a developer as more bureaucracy, but then added if the developer stayed very close to the village guidelines, code requirements, and standard terms of construction, he could ask for the specific plan to be waived. The Council has it within their power to waive it. He then IIIIIIIII Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 commented further on additional savings in both money and time due to this new procedure; which could include requesting of variances. Staff stated that one of the main reasons specific plans were brought forward for Planning Commission and Council consideration was they were requesting for relief or deviations from the City's development standards; and the specific plan process allowed for that. So this would certainly be an opportunity for the developer to contemplate as they were proposing a project. There being no further questions of staff, and the City being the applicant, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. There being no public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Weber to adopt Resolution 2012- 010 recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012- 108 as submitted. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. CVWD VIP Water Awareness Tour, May 11, 2012 invitation. Chairman Alderson commented it was worthwhile and educational and recommended the others considering attending the tour. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report of the City Council Meeting of April 17, 2012, given by Chairman Alderson. B. Commissioner Wilkinson is scheduled to report back on the May 1, 2012, City Council meeting; however he will be unable to attend the May 8, 2012, meeting and asked if one of the other members could attend on his behalf. Chairman Alderson volunteered. -11- Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 C. Commissioner Wright gave a brief review of his observance of the property walk-through with Code Enforcement and Mr. Moran in reference to the appeal (APP 2012-006) presented at the April 10, 2012, meeting. D. Chairman Alderson had a question about the project scheduled for review at the May 8, 2012, meeting. Staff gave a brief synopsis of the item. IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. City Council Report — Update on Green and Sustainable La Quinta Program, dated April 17, 2012. General discussion on continuing receipt of these reports, whether the City is receiving full credit for all events, if containers are available for recycling fluorescent bulbs and batteries, and amount of rebates versus dollars collected. Staff offered to look into these matters and respond back at a later date. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioners Weber/Barrows to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on May 8, 2012. This regular meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m. on April 24, 2012. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California -12- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MAY 8, 2012 CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: AV CONSTRUCTION, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: AV CONSTRUCTION, LLC ARCHITECT: POON DESIGN, INC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: HSA DESIGN GROUP ENGINEER: MDS CONSULTING PH # A REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND UNIT LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR ALTA VERDE CORAL MOUNTAIN (FORMERLY PASATIEMPO); TR 34243 LOCATION: NORTH SIDE AVENUE 58, '/a MILE WEST OF MADISON STREET GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) ZONING DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (PGA WEST AND PUERTA AZUL) SOUTH: PREZONED-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (AGRICULTURE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY) EAST: PREZONED-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (AGRICULTURE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY) WEST: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (TRILOGY PROJECT AREA) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The La Quinta Planning Department has determined that the request has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2005-557 prepared for Tentative Tract 34243 which was certified in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the La Quinta City Council on May 16, 2006. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed, or new information has been submitted, which would trigger the preparation of any subsequent environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. BACKGROUND The Pasatiempo project was originally approved as a 70-lot subdivision on approximately 20 acres, under Tract 34243, by the La Quinta City Council on May 16, 2006. It is located on the north side of Avenue 58, approximately '/4 mile west of Madison Street (Attachment 1). Shortly thereafter, the project proponent, Innovative Communities, filed a Site Development Permit (SDP 2006-863) for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three prototypical residential unit plans for use in Tract 34243. The application was approved by the Planning Commission on July 25, 2006. Innovative completed the subdivision improvements and three model units under this approval prior to the housing market crash. AV Construction acquired the site in 2011 and proposes a new product type for the remaining 67 lots; the existing 3 models will remain and be marketed with the new product line. Attachment 2 includes several photos of the site in its current condition, as well as photos of the completed units. PROPOSAL Project Overview: The applicant is requesting consideration of new architectural and individual unit landscaping plans to complete the 67 remaining lots within TR 34243 (Attachment 3). The site is bounded on the north by portions of the PGA West and Puerta Azul developments. To the south, across Avenue 58, lies the undeveloped portion of the Andalusia project; the Lion's Gate custom lots are to the east and to the west is the Santa Rosa Trails development. The project proposes four single-family detached unit floor plans: • Product 'C-3' (Attachment 3; Sheet 02) - Located on 18 lots, this has 2,829 s.f. of living area, with 3 BR and 3 BA, and a two -car garage. 2 • Product 'J-3' (Attachment 3; Sheet 07)— Located on 13 lots, this has 2,659 s.f. of living area, with 3 BR and 2 BA, and a two -car garage that includes a tandem space sized for a golf cart or third vehicle. Lots with J-3 units can also accommodate a 179 s.f. accessory pool structure, which includes a bathroom and shower. • Product 'D-3' (Attachment 3; Sheet 12) — Located on 18 lots, this has 2,786 s.f. of living area, with 3 BR and 3 BA, and a two -car garage. • Product 'Z-3' (Attachment 3; Sheet 17) — Located on 18 lots, this has 2,619 s.f. of living area, with 3 BR and 2 BA, and a two -car garage. Lots with Z-3 units can also accommodate a 162 s.f. accessory pool pavilion, similar to a detached patio cover. These units are all single story and do not exceed 20' 2" (J-3 unit); the Z-3 plan is only 1 1' 10" in height. While the siting plan (Attachment 3; Sheet 01) shows swimming pools and pool accessory structures on most lots, pools are intended to be constructed with all units as a standard feature. There are three existing model units that were constructed in 2007, as part of the original Pasatiempo approvals. The applicant intends to incorporate these units into the overall lot program for the new units, by refurbishing the front elevations' architectural detailing, materials, colors and changing the existing landscaping to be more in line with the proposed units. The new units will be sold out of a relocated model complex, north of the existing homes (Attachment 3; Sheet 01). Landscaping: The project infrastructure, common area landscaping and other permanent improvements have all been completed and accepted by the City; the applicant only proposes landscaping plan typicals for the individual unit front yards (Attachment 3; Sheet 26). These individual yard plans incorporate a mix of Washingtonia Hybrid and Sago palms, Desert Willow, Chilean Mesquite and Museum Palo Verde as their major elements. Various succulents, cacti and ornamental grasses make up the remainder of the palette. Desert Gold decomposed granite is the primary inert cover, with both smooth and crushed cobble accents. Most plants used in the palette are low-water use species, and there are no turfed areas provided. Site Design: The project site layout is already established and fully improved. It is laid out in an elongated grid, with perimeter lots backing up along all four sides of the project. A common lot runs north -south through the center of the project, providing a c greenbelt/trail area for residents. Lots backing up to this common area are elevated above it and include a wrought iron fence with decorative pilasters as separation along the rear property lines. Valle Verde, a short street segment that connects to the internal loop street layout, provides access into the tract from Avenue 58. The existing wall signs along Avenue 58 reading "Pasatiemo" remain in place. The applicant proposes no new landscape or other lighting, as these improvements already exists for the common areas throughout the project site. The only lighting proposed will be the wall sconce fixtures and recessed CFL downlights that are part of the individual units (Attachment 3, Sheet 25). Architectural Design: The proposed architectural plans reflect a Modernist theme (Attachment 3; Sheets 02 - 25). The technical elevations convey a very simplified appearance; the renderings provide a better feel for the architectural concept. The C-3 unit (Attachment 3; Sheets 02 — 06) incorporates flat roof line parapets with a central elevated clerestory. This is a one-story unit at a height of 17' 0" to the clerestory, and 11' 6" to the main building and garage rooflines. The J-3 unit (Attachment 3; Sheets 07 - 1 1) incorporates a hipped Mission tile roof with a 4.5 to 1 pitch over the living and dining areas of the unit, and flat roof lines over the garage and sleeping rooms. This is a one-story unit at a height of 20' 2" to the hipped roofline and 13' 0" to the flat roof parapet. The D-3 unit (Attachment 3; Sheets 12 - 16) also incorporates a hipped Mission tile roof with a 4.5 to 1 pitch over the garage, and living and dining areas of the unit, and a flat roof line over the sleeping rooms. This is a one-story unit at a height of 18' 8" to the hipped roofline and 12' 0" to the flat roof parapet. This unit most closely resembles the existing units in mass, scale and design. The Z-3 unit (Attachment 3; Sheets 17 - 22) utilizes a flat roof line over the entire structure. This is a one-story unit at a height of 18' 8" to the hipped roofline and 12' 0" to the flat roof parapet. Materials to be used (Attachment 3; Sheet 25) include stone veneer, fiberglass wood windows and entry doors, painted metal fascia and screens, and exterior walls in cement plaster in a medium sand texture finish. The material/color palette provides for 6 options; the builder would like to give their buyers a variety of color options with six different package options. The stone veneer will only be used on the C-3 and Z-3 units. Individual site walls will be precision block finish for demising walls, and split -face block for all front site walls except for the D-3 unit, which will share the unit's color and sand finish. 4 ANALYSIS Site Design: The units, pools and accessory buildings, as shown on the floor plans, comply with the RL district zoning standards and Supplemental Residential Regulations governing pools and accessory buildings. No analysis of site design is necessary as the project layout is built out. All street, landscape and other improvements associated with TR 34243 have been accepted by the City's Planning and Public Works Departments. The applicant will need to apply for a sign permit if he intends to change the project entry signs. The only proposed exterior lighting is related to the individual units and consists of exterior wall sconces and recessed CFL downlights to be used on the units. This low-level lighting will confine direct light within the individual lot boundaries. From a design perspective, staff is recommending that at least one additional exterior wall sconce model be incorporated. Architectural Design: With regards to the architectural style, the Modernist vernacular of the proposed units initially caused some concern to staff, given the Mediterranean/Spanish-based architectural styles in the surrounding area. This style is a more simplistic, minimalist architecture, with little or no embellishments (pop -outs, niches, cornices, etc.) commonly seen in other architectural proposals. The proposed architecture will stand apart from the surrounding built environment. However, the height, mass, and scale of the units, the tallest being at about 20 feet high, will significantly minimize perceived incompatibilities with surrounding styles. The biggest concern of staff is with compatibility in regard to the three existing units and their overall streetscape appearance (Attachment 3; Sheet 23), which were more typical of Spanish or Mediterranean styles of architecture. Based on discussions with the applicant, staff had requested this streetscape exhibit, which includes the new units with the existing homes to show how these elevations would appear in relation to one another. This sheet shows that the existing units will receive new plaster sand finish and color, lighting sconces, garage and entry doors consistent with the new units. They will also have certain decorative features removed (i.e. clay piping and iron work insets, clay wall -coping tiles), toward consistency with the more minimalist appearance of the new units. Staff had made additional suggestions which included removal of the decorative edging along the garage header for the Lot 40 unit, and changing the arched door and windows to rectangular, consistent with the new units. It was also suggested that some of the 5 stone veneer be worked into at least one of the existing homes to help further tie these units in with the new product. Regarding colors/materials (Attachment 3; Sheet 25), while the package infers 6 options, there are limitations in color and material choices within those options. For example, while there are 6 different (if not distinct) plaster colors, there is only one accent paint color. The lighting fixtures are the same for each option. The windows, entry and garage doors are all the same specification and pattern, with only two color variations. The tile roof material is one specification and provides three tile color patterns. The stone veneer provides the most variation (three stone cuts in three colors), but will only be used on just over half of the units. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide more color choices/variations for review by the Planning Director. All the above referenced changes were recommended to the ALRC (see below under ALRC ACTION). The project also proposes two types of accessory yard structures as options to homeowners (Attachment 3; Sheet 22). Accessory Structure A is an enclosed building with a bathroom facility, while Accessory Structure B is similar to a small detached patio cover, intended more as a shade element. While Structure A is intended as an accessory pool use, it is designed in a manner that could physically accommodate its use as living space. However, its size and location precludes its use as a guest house or second unit under the Municipal Code. Therefore, staff has included Condition 32 to address this issue. Landscaping: In general, the proposed landscape palette for the individual units is consistent with the existing landscape design throughout the project. While the assorted species of plants do not exactly match the previously approved palette for the unit landscapes, they are consistent in type and quantities, and provide a diversity which distinguishes the new units within the tract's setting. They also reflect the City's requirements and policies toward lower water -use landscapes, which are more restrictive now than when the landscape plans for the original units were approved in 2006. The use of the new unit landscape plans to replace the existing unit landscaping will also help to further integrate the existing units into the new project design. The use of Palo Verdes, Desert Willow and Washingtonia Palms, along with cacti and succulent accents, properly reflects a Desert Southwestern environment in context with the proposed architectural style. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEEE ACTION The project application was reviewed by the Architectural and Landscaping Review [: Committee (ALRC) on April 4, 2012. The ALRC discussed their concerns with the project, relating primarily to landscaping requirements for rear yards and inclusion of more lush materials, solar control, and compatibility of the existing units with the new product. The ALRC was complimentary of the Modernist architecture and design layout of the units themselves. The ALRC unanimously recommended approval of the Site Development Permit by Minute Motion 2012-003 (Attachment 4), subject to incorporation of the staff recommendation, but with modifications as follows: • Staff recommended that the arched doors, windows and openings for the existing Lot 40 unit be changed, consistent with those of the new unit types. The ALRC modified this recommendation to allow metal awnings, as used on the new units, to cover the arched windows and doorways. Attachment 5 has been submitted by the applicant to illustrate this modification. • Staff also recommended that a stone veneer treatment shall be employed on at least one of the existing units; the ALRC removed this recommendation based on the applicant's use of split face block on the front site walls between the units. While not made a part of the formal recommendation, the ALRC did request that the applicant consider certain comments and suggestions, as follows: A. Increased solar control provisions; B. Use of deeper/darker sand plaster finish colors; C. Addition of more and lusher landscaping materials; D. Use of sliding doors vs. French doors in rear of units; E. Potential for dog watering fixture/location in the common greenbelt PUBLIC NOTICE:. This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 27, 2012. . All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no written comments have been received. MANDATORY FINDINGS As required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance, findings to approve Site Development Permit 2006-863, Amendment #1, are as follows: VA 1. Compliance with General Plan The project is in compliance with the La Quinta General Plan, in that the property to be developed is designated and has been approved for residential development. 2. Compliance with Zoning Code - The project is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code for the RL Zoning District, in regards to the applicable development standards for this project. In addition, the project is in compliance with Section 9.60.300 of the Zoning Code, in regard to compatibility review for partially developed subdivisions. Specifically, the proposed units comply with the development standards as cited in Subsection 9.60.300.1. 3. Compliance with CEQA - This request has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2005-557, which was certified by the City Council on May 16, 2006, and therefore, no further environmental review is needed. 4. Architectural Design - The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials,. colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, is a more simplistic, minimalist architecture, with little or no embellishments (pop - outs, niches, cornices, etc.) commonly seen in other architecture of the surrounding built environment. However, the height, mass, and scale of the units, the tallest being at about 20 feet high, will significantly minimize the perception of incompatibility with surrounding styles. In addition, the project is within a fully walled and gated community environment, typical of other existing projects in the area, and in that context, the proposed architectural design of the project is considered compatible with surrounding development and the quality of design prevalent in the City, with imposition of Conditions of Approval as recommended. 5. Site Design - The site design of the project, including, but not limited to project access, interior circulation, pedestrian amenities, and other site design elements, is compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. The project improvements have been previously installed, and are in compliance with the Zoning Code requirements and the approved Tract Map 34243. 6. Landscape Design — The location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials is designed to provide visual relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to 'enhance the visual continuity of the project. Interior common area and perimeter 9 landscaping improvements have already been completed by the prior developer, and the preliminary individual lot landscaping plans as proposed are consistent in type and quantities, provide a diversity which distinguishes the new units within the tract's setting, and properly reflect a Desert Southwestern environment in context with the proposed architectural style. Detailed review of the proposed preliminary individual lot landscaping plans for the new home sites will be required through the Final Landscape Plan review process. These typical front yard plans, for each unit plan type, also reflect the City's requirements and policies toward lower water -use landscapes and will be required to comply with City and Coachella Valley Water District water efficiency requirements, further ensuring efficient water use. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Minute Motion 2012- , approving Site Development Permit 2006-863, Amendment #1, subject to the recommended findings and attached conditions. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Site Aerial; TR 34243 2. Site photos 3. SDP Submittal Exhibit package (Commissioners only) 4. ALRC minutes of April 4, 2012 5. Revision to Existing Lot 40 unit, showing metal awning covers 2 PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTE MOTION 2012- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863, AMENDMENT #1 ALTA VERDE CORAL MOUNTAIN MAY 8, 2012 GENERAL The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Site Development Permit 2006-863, Amendment #1, shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approval: • Tentative Tract Map 34243 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these. approvals, the Planning Director shall adjudicate the conflict by determining the precedence. 3. Site Development Permit 2006-863, Amendment #1 shall expire one year from the date of Planning Commission approval (May 8, 2013), and shall become null and void in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.210.020, unless a building permit for residential unit(s) has been issued. A time extension may be requested pursuant to LQMC Section 9.200.080. 4. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: • Riverside County Fire Marshal • La Quinta Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Exemption Form — Whitewater River Region, Improvement Permit) • La Quinta Planning Department 10 PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTE MOTION 2012- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863, AMENDMENT #1 ALTA VERDE CORAL MOUNTAIN MAY 8, 2012 • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) • State Water Resources Control Board • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When these requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 5. Coverage under the State of California Construction General Permit must be obtained by the applicant; who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("N01") and Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number to the City prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 6. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 at seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin Region Board Order No. R7- 2008-0001 and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 2009- 0009-DWQ and Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP") to the State Water Resources Control Board. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTE MOTION 2012- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863, AMENDMENT #1 ALTA VERDE CORAL MOUNTAIN MAY 8, 2012 The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection' at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. C. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (LQMC Section 8.70.020 (Definitions)): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. The SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City Council. F. The inclusion in the Master HOA Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), a requirement for the perpetual maintenance and operation of all post -construction BMPs as required. 7. Approval of this Site Development Permit shall not be construed. as approval for any horizontal dimensions implied .by any site plans or exhibits unless specifically identified in the following conditions of approval. 8. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions, if Developer requests that the City modify or revise any documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to effect these OVA PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTE MOTION 2012- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863, AMENDMENT #1 ALTA VERDE CORAL MOUNTAIN MAY 8, 2012 conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. 9. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual consultant's fees incurred by the City for engineering and/or surveying consultants to review and/or modify any documents or instruments required by this project. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 10. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 11. Pursuant to the aforementioned condition, conferred rights shall include approvals from the master developer or the HOA over easements and other property rights necessary for construction and proper functioning of the proposed development not limited to access rights over proposed and/or existing private streets that access public streets and open space/drainage facilities of the master development. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 12. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue during street sweeping operations. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be near vertical with a 1 /8" batter and a minimum height of 0.1'. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 13 PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTE MOTION 2012- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863, AMENDMENT #1 ALTA VERDE CORAL MOUNTAIN MAY 8, 2012 IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such. as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 13. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans). 14. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. PM10 Plan (Update) 1" = 40' Horizontal B. Final WQMP (Plan submitted in Report Form) C. On -Site Precise Grading Plan (submitted to Building and Safety Department) 1 " = 20' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. On -Site Precise Grading Plans are required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official, Planning Director and the City Engineer. On -Site Precise Grading Plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, pad elevations, building floor elevations, wall elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements. 15. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the "Plans, Notes 14 PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTE MOTION 2012- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863, AMENDMENT #1 ALTA VERDE CORAL MOUNTAIN MAY 8, 2012 and Design Guidance" section of the Public Works Department at the City website (www.la-quinta.org). Please navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink. 16. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer (currently mylars). GRADING 17. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the. approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions. Additionally, the applicant shall replenish said security if expended by the City of La Quinta to comply with the Plan as required by the City Engineer. 18. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 19. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor with applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 20. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions for post construction runoff per the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. 137-2008-001. 15 PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTE MOTION 2012- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863, AMENDMENT #1 ALTA VERDE CORAL MOUNTAIN MAY 8, 2012 A. For post -construction urban runoff from New Development and Redevelopments Projects, the applicant shall implement requirements of the NPDES permit for the design, construction and perpetual operation and maintenance of BMPs per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project as required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. 137-2008-001. B. The applicant shall implement the WQMP Design Standards per (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2008-001 utilizing BMPs approved by the City Engineer. A project specific WQMP shall be provided which incorporates Site Design and Treatment BMPs utilizing first flush infiltration as a. preferred method of NPDES Permit Compliance for Whitewater. River receiving water, as applicable. C. The developer shall execute and record a Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Agreement that provides for the perpetual maintenance and operation of stormwater BMPs. MAINTENANCE 21. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), to include provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of perimeter landscaping up to the curb, access drives, sidewalks, and stormwater BMPs. FIRE DEPARTMENT The Fire Department requires the below listed fire protection measures be provided in accordance with the City of LA Quinta Municipal Code and/or the Riverside County Fire Department Fire Protection Standards. Final conditions will be addressed when complete buildings plans are reviewed 22. For residential areas, approved standard fire hydrants, located at each intersection and spaced 500 feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than 250 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for a 2-hour duration at 20 PSI. 23. Residential fire sprinklers are required in all one and two family dwellings per the California Residential Code. Contact the Riverside County Fire Department for the Residential Fire Sprinkler Standard. KI PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTE MOTION 2012- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863, AMENDMENT #1 ALTA VERDE CORAL MOUNTAIN MAY 8, 2012 24. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be verified as installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. Two sets of water plans are to be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. 25. Applicant/Developer shall mount blue dot retro-reflectors pavement markers on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicated location of the fire hydrant. It should be 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations (RCFD Standard 06-05; located at www.rvcfire.org). FEES AND DEPOSITS 26. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits). These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 27. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 28. The applicant is advised that the City of La Quinta is considering participation in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee program (TUMF), as administered by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). The fees under the TUMF program shall apply to any permits issued after the effective date of the City's participation in said TUMF program, and pursuant to the terms of the program as may be in effect at that time. 29. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Art in Public Places program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. ,30. Applicant shall pay the fees as required by the Coachella Valley Unified School District, as in effect at the time requests for building permits are submitted. 31. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Habitat 17 PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTE MOTION 2012- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863, AMENDMENT #1 ALTA VERDE CORAL MOUNTAIN MAY 8, 2012 Conservation Plan Mitigation Fee, in accordance with LQMC Chapter 3.34. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 32. Accessory Structure A may only be used as an accessory building related to the routine residential use of a yard space or of a swimming pool. It may not be established or otherwise used as any living space, i.e., guest .house, second unit, or other living or sleeping room. The CC&R's for the project shall be amended or established with this stipulation. The City shall confirm the inclusion of this provision prior to recordation of the amended CC&R's. 33. The applicant shall submit an expanded materials board, outlining additional color and material variations for the following: Accent Paint, Garage Doors, Fiberglass Windows and Entry Doors. At least one additional Exterior Wall Sconce model shall be incorporated. 34. The herein listed revisions shall be incorporated with the proposed modification of the existing units. These modifications shall be included with the building plans prepared for final building permit review, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of the first building permit.. A. All arched doors, windows and openings on the existing units shall be covered with painted metal screen awnings, consistent in design with those of the new unit types. B. Chimney boxes for the existing units shall be changed out, consistent with those of the new unit types. 35. The applicant shall submit final landscape plans for review, processing and approval to the Planning Department, in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan application process. Final landscape plans shall include any proposed and/or required landscape lighting plans/specifications. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with LQMC Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting). Planning Director approval of final landscape plans is required prior to issuance of the first building permit unless the Planning Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justify an alternative processing schedule. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the appropriate City official, including the Planning Director and/or City Engineer. 18 PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTE MOTION 2012- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863, AMENDMENT #1 ALTA VERDE CORAL MOUNTAIN MAY 8, 2012 36. Any model home/sales complex shall comply with the requirements of Section 9.60.250 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires a Minor Use Permit approval and deposit, prior to establishing any model units or temporary sales facilities. 19 ATTACHMENT 1 SITE AERIAL 230n f CityGIS ALTA VERDE - TR 34243 N Copyri&,ft ®2006 AU Pogi,ft Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the contributor supplied under liceme and may not be approved exept ea licensed by D OW Map products. 20 HE CITY OF W QUNTA STALE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. OF CALIFORN% SHEET 2 OF 9 SHEETS N T CUYaIL110UINTA _. TRACT '-i� �3 - Dom_. BOND A StODMSIOI OF THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST IMLF OF THE soURINW QUARTFA OF THE SWnVST QUARTER AND THE WEST WIF OF THE NEST TWF OF THE SOUTEAST WARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, . . TOWNSHIP S SOUTH, RWGE 7 EAST. SAN BERWRONO RISE MERIOMN. RMR WE COLN , GyIDORNM a i V. Mryl RImE N Lql AIDS CONSULTING WY. 2006 GARS W. WHICH LS.4693 OF r V. Tw.m R.CE I PER IR.ACT W 113e1-1. Ms(CWILl IL Ref, Y AS-\ SURVEYOR'S NOTES IA It RV 2t T. I L " L u.".. 0 - INDICATES P LAO IWNOMEOT AS OESMM NFAEON. ( ) RCMxRS M.B. lli/BI-�. NMBS OTgMSE MT 0. () - 'N CAM SET I' IP. TAG(ED L.S w93. RUSH (f U IN KITES B. x2/Iro-la OW£4 GOEFOSE NTT. ADIPQRT BOULEVARD t1 '.INLESS 01NENYSE NOTED I- IBM PIPE. TAGGED LE, .13, RUSH GM A LEAD AM TACK, ) INBcMS M& 256/0}70. UNL2S OTAMASE NOTED. TAGEED LS, 093 N CONCRETE CA IF LOT CCPNER FALLS ON FACE 7CURB, SET LEAD .0 TACK. TAGEED LS. 160 IN LOP p219 < i yIGATLS N8. m-83, UNLESS OIICRMSE IgTEP 7 WHO ON A 00'' CPFS£T, TO BE AT AT ALL LOT CORNERS EXCEPT A' B.C'S EC'S. P.P.C'S THAT AELT A SA, WCH NS TRACT MAP CCNWNB 70 NUMBERED LOTS ARE NOT LOT COWERS NARKING 91LE LOT LINES, TO HE SET AND 13 LETTERED LOTS. AT Ali TRACT COINER& AND N BE SET AT ALL CENTERLINE INTERSECTONS. &C'S. C.C.'S. ANO ALL OVER SWT. IJNE THIS WCT MAP CONTAINS 20,094 ACRES. POINTS OF CIXIW0. UNLESS OVEANISE NOTED. N..1 L TK N 1. EnLE ILLEGIBLE. TP=T, NO. Ssbu I 1 � A N MU 9 z In. TACCN RC E IUTA. ,CmAi XE. CN MAST i.. %NX/ N& mm-as V MB. x2/iW-Iw. 9] b Q W 47 /11 — _ 1 _ _ _ _ — i &NEETI NO. D �y LOT A .� /1llT N ((X N]9 r6E Him))-- NET' Ifx i X "N3"E MET - Dm/ 11 1IDrn 2 A� b \ Ll 'A 1/ I ID MP N gE�l+ 13 tD w SS I I I r � e I_ IN 1Y ,o XT m — 261 1 It w f7 s —to—€ —R----u—� Xx �, p B D F SCALE 1--100 ITT r �.CT—rl IO I 34 N XD I 7 B IDI I > w E >D y „ L 3 to I 2 32In 2 o -C a DD st ! ro n r� -0 n l OfSJ LOT D �- a LOT e o L A K SCMN R. 1' U hUSL X/W SAYEp LL NwA HR//1R1KT b b ICON 2FABl I%MCMC05E4 ri� BR MO-SECTM ML v — 1 -21- 22 SGRTRD, . MMMO. I I I ij D 61 I D I N 1 i a< I r- nl gl D I I B 1 IA 9 ICI Z NI — I I€I = l 3�1 I I LbTA IAEO (( s""C''HE L x e7wlSt AVENUE SB C _9HEEF W". NQ_3 _ _ _ _ _ 47,X I' CIN3S TIES RR TNLI U2/BI-H wCFPIp AS EOJM 1/1 R. AC EI M w NVL RIIDI 0 RV. X WIVIT W. 0.19 FEET HOW WNYD. KCfII® R3 w ON, EAST RLY ME OFHACT W7 M NW'ISE 2WH2 N. 1' IP. RM. TK XIECEEL U W W ISE 2N1 N') IN UN 0` f P X/RASOC RW e91DRSt M IWDI STWRll R.CE 2r1W. PER TRACT 1 7 W. 2Nx. M L FISEMENTS BASIS OF BEARBlC THE YFNMw3 SINM HUM ARE RASED UPON I1MrzD M IWPEWL "GOON 061?X7 ®- IMMI N imurc WiLeos6mnEMUT mw&C=Y ON W M DUXM D2 WITERUXE CE AgNE W PER TRACT RW W. BIWA AS FAILED M R2y m PMAS X9 ©_ ELSMEM N C.N..X.O. TOP WM6RC OB A. I... P..I` un ©- 2➢�TMFODT HAERENTTTTO CW.WD. IDA 3 2-1 ATTACHMENT 2 Entry on Avenue 58 Landscaped retention basin area ALTA VERDE CORAL MOUNTAIN AV CONSTRUCTION, LLC LA OUNTA, CA SUMMER 2011 22 Entry gate Looking north ALTA VERDE CORAL MOUNTAIN AV CONSTRUCTION, LLC LA OUINTA, CA SEPTEMBER 2011 23 F. 1 I o C, f ,.A',. View of lots, looking north Existing residence- will be re -painted and re -landscaped to match new schemes ALTA VERDE CORAL MOUNTAIN AV CONSTRUCTION, LLC LAQUwracn SEPTEWER 2011 24 Landscaped retention basin looking north Landscaped retention basin looking south ALTA VERDE CORAL MOUNTAIN AV CONSTRUCTION, LLC LAQUINTA,CA SEPTEMBER 2011 26 ATTACHMENT 3 COMMISSIONERS ONLY 27 ATTACHMENT 4 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A special meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 4, 2012 CALL TO ORDER A. This regular meeting of the Architectural Committee was called to order at 10:05 n,;, David Sawyer who led the Committee,,in tl B. Committee Members Present: Rooker Committee Member Absent: "None C. Staff present: Planningry Manager Da, Wallace Nesbit, and Secretary Monika PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION' w . IV. CONSENT CALEI Staff askdd'4f: Cher There being no cc •Committee Memb1 AYES: Committee None ABSTAIN: V. BUSINESS AGEN 10:05 a.m. "Landscaping Review by Planning Manager iq salute. McCune, and Sawyer, Principal Planner any changes to the Minutes of January 4; 2012. s, or,„.corrections it was moved and seconded by :er/McCune to approve the minutes as submitted. rs McCune and Rooker. NOES: None. ABSENT: tee Member Gray. A. Site Development Permit 2006-863, Amendment NO. 1 has been submitted by AV Construction, LLC. for consideration of Architectural, and Unit Landscaping Plans for Alta Verde Coral Mountain (formerly Pasatiempo); Tract 34243; located on the north side of Avenue 58, '/4 mile west of Madison Street. Principal Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 28 Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes April 4, 2012 Planning Manager Sawyer asked the Committee if there were any questions of staff. Committee Member Gray asked if the project improvements had been completed. Staff replied that they had. There being no further questions of staff, Planning Manager Sawyer said the applicant had prepared a presentation that they would like to show to the Committee. u Mr. Andrew Adler, CEO of Alta Verde Group, 315 S. Beverly Drive, Ste 208, Beverly Hills, CA, introduced himself and gave a brief overview of the company's history ,,and experience, explained the applicant's intent for the proposed project, an ascribed in detail why the architectural design arl features were choserl Mr. Adler noted that the three existing model homes were being repainted to match ;the dil) development color palette and some design elements that had been perceived as overly ornate,had been removed to makb,'th'em „blend in witlhl new architectural design. .. Mr. Adler said all of the proposed homes have basic solar systems installed;,' therefhre, a portion, of the roofs were flat. He explained the hornet>wner would be gipen the opportunity to upgrade from basic Solaro l�vet two, tli'ree, and so forth, at the time of pu'rohase, an f°�increase thcenergy efficiency of the house. Mr. Anthony Pooh, iPfincipal with Poon Design, Inc., 315 South Beverly Drive, Ste,1206, Beverly Hills, CA, introduced himself and said the architectural style was inspired a lot by the Tuscan Italian style,, in its silm licit y and honesty, speaking with the quality of the mate68Is "r §tead of the use of ornaments. He gave a brief overview "of the three different color palettes used, as well as the difference of the front doors, garage doors, window color frames, etc. Mr. Adler said the final product was four types of homes with different facades that did not incorporate a lot of ornate elements, the architecture had been left simple, and the landscaping, variety had been used almost as a decorative feature. 29 P:\Reports - ALRC\2012\ALRC_6-6-12\ALRC Min_44-12_Draft Linked.doc 2 Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes April 4, 2012 Mr. Adler explained there were six different color palettes combined with three different landscape palettes which essentially create different type homes. Mr. Adler said general improvements had already been made to the site, expected pre -sale date of the homes was to begin in September of 2012, with actual construction commencing at the beginning of 2013. Committee Member Gray asked if there the property. Mr. Adler replied there wt the development leading to the park are as a retention basin. Committee Member Gray aske located on the lots. Mr. Adler`' location selected for the pool determined on a case -by -case structure, it would mast, likely there were no accessorl strict the landscaping wall.All for and MCC at the code y sidewalks around ig sidewalks within would also be used e pool equipment: would be :re hadn't be�efill"a particular it"gas it would have to be basi6.,1%,,t If there was an accessory be placed on the side of it, and if re, it would,kfe` placed on the side of asked„`Astaff what was the required tructure. Principal Planner Nesbit ements were in terms of size, height, Committee Member McCune asked if the pools would be built as part of tomes tVMr. Adler replied the proposed pools and open pool structures/ca,Onas would be offered as an option to the liomeowners!i He explained there would be three different pool types available to choose from and the proposed accessory structures would be in compliance with the City code requirements in terms'',!bf height and setbacks. Committee Member McCune asked if the pools would have a spa. Mr. Adler said the spa would also be an option for the homeowner to choose from; however, the spa would be incorporated into the pool, leaving the pool size the same. Committee Member McCune asked about the solar option offered with the homes. Mr. Adler explained that the homes would have 30 P:\Reports - ALRC2012WLRC_6-6-12\ALRC Min_44-12_Draft Linked.doc 3 Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes April 4, 2012 base solar system already installed with the inverter located in the garage. Thus, the solar foundation would be in place and it would be up to the owner to decide whether or not to expand upon it. He said provided that the solar tax rebates were still available, it would cover the cost of the upgrade for the homeowner. Committee Member Gray asked if the parapet roof wall would be tall enough to hide the solar panels. Mr. Adler replied it would. Committee Member Gray asked what the pools. Mr. Adler replied it would tech. Committee Member Rooker said expressed a concern regardJr windows incorporated into ,lhe were not protected by either t covering which might become months in the desert 'He also doors, opening outward, ��tI'lart �t backyards were too close to°th replaced with sliders to ellminatt the lack of snece. s`would be used for be plaster or pebble very much liked the project. He the.,, large amourstI, of, exposed )posed, architectural"°i'design that �untng�°"or some type of a roof issue during the hot summer ad that. the proposed the French back off !;the homes facing the aol and ''suggested that those be ivlbossible functional issues with Mr.'Ad 111, ei, said the design team had performed detailed incremental studies on'the homes 1n order to ensure that they meet or exceed the. established require ants by fifteen percent in order to receive the solar tax credits available. He explained, that the orientation of the homes was d`e'signbc! from east to west so that the majority of the exposed'PvvindpWs were not in direct sunlight during the day. He „noted that;ithe windows located on the north and south sides of the;!homes ,which would be directly exposed to the sun, had some typel!46f, a :window treatment. He explained in detail the different windowI�Ireatments used and the measures that had been taken in order to ensure compliance with Title 24 requirements. Committee Member Rooker said he would have liked for the proposed color palette to be a bit deeper and richer. He also suggested the use of a fuller and richer landscaping palette in order to soften the architectural lines and make the homes appear lusher, as he found the proposed landscaping palette to be a bit scarce. Mr. Adler replied he was a big supporter of lush landscaping; 31 P:\Reports - ALRC\2012\ALRC_6-6-12WLRC Min_4-4-12_Draft Linked.doc 4 Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes April 4, 2012 however, it was against almost all of the current desert scape mandates and water efficiency requirements. He explained why the proposed landscaping palette was chosen and how it was used to make the homes appear plusher. Discussion followed regarding the overall landscaping of the project, the types of trees and brushes used, the shortcomings of the landscape renderings failing to provide a realistic image of what would be actually installed on site, etc. Mr. Chuck Shepardson, ASLA, Pre: 255 Via Sovana, Indian Wells, CA said that the selected shrub rr Agaves, Yuccas, etc. were mteri ll keep their shape and structure bvei of Bougainvillea type shrub rnateria whoever would be handling it. N„F Mr. Adler said that 'he concurred suggestion to add palmireesto the give the project an oasis/reso�tAvpq a,of iHSA Design Group, 76- 10 introduced himself and I corislsting of Ocotillos, y selected iY,as they would in comparison,with the use h would be i'' h„the hands of the architectural team's ev#,landscaping palette to Committee Member Gray asked if palm trees would be installed in the front Yards. Mr. Adler confirmed. ommittee'=Member,gray asked if landscaping would be installed in ie ,'rear yards' Mr idler' replied that no landscaping would be rov de&Rgbut the homeowners would have the option to have the eveloper;Ji stall It i , Jandscaping in the rear yards as an upgrade nd choose from three different landscaping design plans. Committee Member Gray asked what landscaping would be installed at,the retention basin greenway. Mr. Adler replied that no chanaeshlwould be made to it. Committee Member McCune asked if it had been maintained over the years. Mr. Adler replied that recently it had been completely redone. Mr. Russell Jones, Construction Manager for Alta Verde Builders, 71-905 Highway 111, Ste G, Rancho Mirage, CA, introduced 32 PAReports - ALRC\2012\ALRC_6-6-12\ALRC Min_44-12_Draft Linked.doc 5 Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes April 4, 2012 himself and gave an overview of the landscaping of the retention basin and the common areas outside and inside the gates. Committee Member McCune asked if the homes facing the retention basin through the rear yards would have a lower back wall than the rest of the homes within the development. Mr. Adler replied that the CC&Rs required that metal fences be installed for the back yards of those homes and that there would be no access to the greenway through the back yards. ry, Discussion followed regarding the tr( the height and type of retention wall Committee Member Rooker as the homeowners to landscape such a mandate would not b'e Committee Member for the back yards if option. Mr. Adler described its dimensi Discussionfnilowed concrete'Jor tHa rlriv in with the.,,.propos'ed Discussion followed roof �IineS,;dramagsJi asked if arch , etc. r the metal fence and vends the greenway. was art1. y11 dway to mandate yards Mr I'Adhler said that rceable and explained why. itio area would be provided not select a pool upgrade o"uld be provided and different finish options for the patios, and how those would blend the height, slopes, and design of the Committee°MemberI'Rooker suggested to leave.the comments made the ConiVa ittee on the project merely as comments and not include thenvIn the motion, so that the approval of the project is not C9 , tingent upon them. Mr. Adler asked the Committee to consider removing bullet points A and B under recommendation #2 of the staff report requesting that the applicant change the arched doors, windows and openings for the existing Lot 40 unit, to make them consistent with the new unit types, and to install a stone veneer treatment on the facade of at least one of the existing units. 33 P:Uteports - ALRC2012\ALRC_6-6-12\ALRC Min_4-4-12_Draft Linked.doc 6 Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes April 4, 2012 Mr. Jones said the side walls of the existing units facing the street were currently slump -stone stucco. He noted that those would be replaced with split -face precision block which would help create a similar stone look in between each house. Mr. Adler added that they would like to not have to structurally tear down the existing units and leave them as they were. He explained that metal awnings were being added to the windows and the doors which would hide the existing arches over them. Upon being asked if that addressed Manger Sawyer noted that staff q„ recommendations as listed in the staff'I within the development. Committee Member Gray askeq#,, the side metal gates of the homer, not yet been finalized, but it would s concerns, Planning like to keep the icA:ensure consistency Dior had bee"hldlselected for Adler said that detail had likely be a soft tan color. The Committee would K the applicant Xo Consider the following comments and suggestions: ' ui,rii t rrr • Use°of sliding doors ns'. French°doors at rear of units • Possible dog wiring area in common greenbelt •'' Add betteiF"window treatments for sun protection • Deepen /,darken the proposed color palette /adid n org,landscepih" and lusher materials to the proposed bemg';r10 further discussion, it was moved and seconded by ittee '1lfjembers McCune/Rooker to adopt Minute Motion D03, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 3£3, ''"Amendment No. 1, as submitted with staff's tiendations, but modifying bullet point A to say: ,All arched doors, windows and openings on the existing units shall be covered with painted metal screen awnings, consistent in design with those of the new unit types." and deleting bullet point B from recommendation #2. Unanimously approved. 34 PAReports - ALRC\2012\ALRC_6-6-12\ALRC Min_4-4-12_Draft Linked.doc 7 Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes April 4, 2012 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: Committee Member Rooker said he was not pleased with the status change of the Committee to City employees. Staff explained the reasons that had made the status change necessary. General discussion followed regarding the status change and similar changes that had been implemented in the su«ounding cities in the Coachella Valley. VIII. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: Planning Manager Sawyer gave presented to the Planning Comm the actions taken. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further Committee Members M Architectural and Land$ee be held on,;May 2, 201g. April 4, 2012 MONIKA Secretary ew of the cases that had been r review and consideration and business art was moved and seconded by une/Gray to adjourn this meeting of the ng Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to This meting was adjourned at 11:28 a.m. on 35 P:\Reports - ALRC\2012\ALRC_6-6-12\ALRC Min_4-4-12_Draft Linked.doc 8 ATTACHMENT 5 ___ _ __ nAC® VYPMMA _ __ __ _ ._.___ __ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ E=TM SMERM m CA BOTH B= 1 OR d D PATCK 9R=, & PA t PARTM IMAL SCRE ' �C4�7fi4t�►'��N!ti ?� ti PATCkE®. 9 PAllt MD' _ - • l X81rING DECORAiM, IT 1 is• �.. t 4 u eT t f �y • �, 4 q 3a��. _ � - ' � 1 rXF V t f T CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AFTER REPORT PACKETS WERE DISTRIBUTED MARK & DIANA 57253 saint Andrew La Quinta CA 92253 By E-Mail May 6, 2012 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA. 92253 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863, AMENDMENT #1 We live in PGA West very close the planned Alta Verde development. This letter expresses our concerns about the development and aspects of the development not included in the Amendment petition. We ask that you not approve the application since it does not reflect announced plans to change the plot that would allow rear egress into PGA West. At very least, should the Amendment be approved, the Commission should go on record that the approval does not allow for such egress and that should the developer seek such egress it would need to file another amendment. 1. The developer and PGA West club management have announce that they intend to install a "cart gate" onto Hermitage Avenue within PGA West. The would allow access for Alta Verde residents and guests to enter and utilize PGA West private property. The Amendment does not reflect a gate or path to the gate. In fact, the lots nearest Hermitage would seem to leave no room for such access. 2. PGA West homeowners and Members have not been afforded any opportunity to review and assess any proposal for "gate" access. The Club has been less than forthcoming about the plan and tabled the topic at the only meeting where Members could have addressed it. We believe the Planning Commission should direct the Developer and Club to submit detailed plans on their proposal before any further action is taken. 3. We believe gate access proposal raises significant legal, financial, security and governance issues that need to be addressed thoroughly by the Planning Commission, PGA West homeowners and the HOA/SBA's. In the absence of detailed plans from the Developer and Club, it is impossible to address the many issues that would be raised by such a proposal. 4. It is clear to us that the PGA West management is not acting in the best interests of homeowners — both member and non-member owners. It should concern the Commission that PGA West managers who have a financial stake in the Alta Verde .r'j, access that is at odds with the owners' and members' interest should be able to take action with no checks or balances. We have asked that these representatives recues themselves from Association votes but our request has generated negative reactions and legal threats to "shut up and stay out of it." 5. We also believe the planned gate access and membership sales to owners outside of PGA West will have a negative impact of house and membership values. Sincerely, Mark & Diana Schmitz Monika Radeva From: DRAUTO@aol.com Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 5:36 PM To: Planning WebMail Subject: Comments re Alta Verde amendment Attachments: MDS_LQPlanning.pdf Sirs: We wish to have the attached letter considered re the: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863 We do not think approval should occur. Mark & Diana M"K 6 101PAM SCHarm 2904 AMERICAN SADDLER DRIVE PARK CITY UT 84060 435-649-1372 57253 SAINT ANDREWS LA QUINTA CA 92253 . 760-972-4303 MARK Cell 435-665-1342 DrAutolfflaol.com DIANA Cell 435-901-1181 DianaKay8ftaol.com Monika Radeva From: Bob Steele <rjsnet@aol.com> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 9:24 AM To: Planning WebMail Cc: Wally Nesbit Subject: written comments Attachments: LQ Planning Dept .doc; club statement Attached are my written comments regarding the AV project. Thank you for your consideration. Robert Steele 57445 Spanish Hills Lane La Quinta, CA. 92253 1 May 6, 2012 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA. 92253 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863, AMENDMENT #1 DELIVERED BY EMAIL TO: planning(Wla-auinta.ora As a PGA West homeowner and taxpayer for the past 11 years. I respectfully submit these written comments for consideration by the Planning staff and Planning Commission: I. The Planning Commission should defer action on this application until such time as the Developer and PGAW Club management have submitted detailed plans to both the PGAW Master Association and the Planning Commission regarding any proposal to install a "cart gate" in the PGAW security wall to allow access for persons on the AV side to enter and use PGAW private property Neither the Planning Commission nor PGAW homeowners have been afforded any opportunity to review and assess any proposal for "gate" access to PGAW private property. Yet, based on the limited information that the Club management and Developer have provided informally in just the past two weeks (see Club statement attached), it now appears that such plans are an integral part of the AV project and they raise significant legal, financial and procedural issues for PGAW homeowners and the PGAW HOAs. Therefore, the Planning _ Commission should direct the Developer and Club to submit detailed plans on their proposal' before any further action is taken. II. Any "gate access" proposal raises significant legal, financial, operational and governance issues that need to be addressed thoroughly by the Planning Commission, PGAW homeowners and the HOAs. In the absence of detailed plans from the Developer and Club, it is impossible to address the many issues that would be raised by such a proposal. However, we can highlight some of the most basic issues that would need to be addressed: A. GOVERNANCE Who is protecting the interests of PGAW homeowners in this situation ? Who is going to make the decision on whether to grant or deny this proposal? Thus far, the only HOA to put this item on the agenda was the Fairways Association which is controlled by Club ownership ( the item was tabled without discussion). How will PGAW Homeowners be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard? Davis -Stirling provides homeowners with fundamental due process rights through their HOAs on matters affecting their property interests. Yet, in this case, the HOAs have largely been left in the dark as only limited information has been released informally in response to homeowner inquiries and concerns. In fact, the environment has become openly hostile to homeowners seeking information and raising concerns ( see the last paragraph of the Club announcement for example) These matters should properly be brought before the PGA West Master Association with appropriate notice to all PGAW homeowners along with an opportunity to address these issues and to raise any questions or concerns through written comments and public hearings. B. FINANCIAL Home values- PGAW homeowners will be negatively impacted by any program that results in AV home buyers being rewarded with "free" memberships while buyers of PGAW homes have to pay $20k for the same membership. It will essentially be a "tax" on PGAW resale homes. HOA costs- All operating costs and reserves paid by homeowners will now be impacted by having an influx of traffic from an unrelated project. C. LEGAL For the past 25 years, Davis -Stirling has provided detailed and exhaustive requirements for the operation and governance of planned communities. In this case, an UNRELATED project would be getting "access" to a well established planned community through a gate in the wall, thereby gaining access to enjoy our private property and the use of our infrastructure and services. This is not an easement for a water line. Rather, it seems the intent is to create a community version of "PGA West " lite " where persons in that community ( anyone who can commandeer one of their golf carts) can "piggyback" on the benefits of PGAW home ownership without being formally annexed. On what legal basis is such an arrangement authorized ? What are the rules for managing a "piggyback" community ? Who is liable for incidents involving persons gaining "access" through the security wall that occur on PGAW property ? D. OPERATIONAL The potential operational issues are significant, including security, traffic, sharing of maintenance costs and reserves, use of common areas etc. Why have uniformed security at our entrance gates when anyone with a cart on the other side of our wall can come in to our properly at any time ? REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORT While the Developer and Club have their own substantial resources tp pursue their commercial interests in this arrangement, they certainly cannot be relied upon to protect the interests of PGAW homeowners and our due process rights. We request that the Planning Commission and City Council implement specific measures to ensure that PGAW homeowners are afforded all of the due process protections to which they are entitled in addressing any questions or concerns in this matter. We believe that, in the absence of specific direction from the Planning Commission, PGAW homeowners will be denied these fundamental protections. Respectfully submitted„ Robert Steele 57445 Spanish Hills Lane La Quinta, CA. 92253 - To our PGA WEST Members and Homeowners, You may have received an email communication labeled "PGA WEST Homeowner Alert" in regards to the Alta Verde home development adjacent to and just south of the PGA WEST community. The communication has a number of inaccuracies and we want to set the record straight. Here are the facts about The Club at PGA WEST, and its proposed agreement with Alta Verde. To be proactive, Club Management and the developer held a town hall meeting on Saturday, April 21, 2012, and all of these details regarding Alta Verde were disclosed. The Club does not offer free Memberships. the past 15 years The Club has successfully secured Membership agreements with 17 .ant builders. The growth of PGA WEST has thrived on these agreements. The proposed rient with Alta Verde is that the developer will purchase Premier Sport Memberships for homes in the development. The Builder will pay the new Members' first year of dues. The proposed golf cart gate for the Alta Verde Development It is not a motor vehicle gate. The golf cart gate would have the same transponder access and cameras currently used in PGA WEST. Because it will record all comings and goings from Alta Verde into PGA WEST, it will actually increase security, not decrease it. There will not be additional car traffic in PGA WEST, only a few golf carts from time to time. As an example, the golf cart gate could look similar to the one at the Greg Norman Residential gate on Kingston Heath taking carts from the 1st green to the 2nd tee. Alta Verde's project will not decrease PGA WEST home values. The award -winning developer, Alta Verde Group, plans to offer 70 new homes of more than 3,000 sq. ft. with upscale amenities. Please click hereto view their website. They will price homes from $600,000 up. Statistics show that new home developments actually increase values in surrounding communities. I The potential agreement brings significant value to The Club, its Members and Homeowners. i The Initiation Deposits the Alta Verde developer would pay would contribute to The I Club's overall financial health. With 70 Sport Memberships, there will also be an annual dues revenue stream of approximately $300,000. The Club also benefits since Sport Members pay the guest rates for golf, food and beverage and all ancillary spend. Since Sport Memberships now count toward tee time allocation, this helps. the j Membership as far as additional tee times. This will also have a positive impact on the Resign list. Unfortunately, a small but vocal group of homeowners is opposed to this agreement. Club Management is always looking out for the best interests of The Club, its Members and the entire PGA WEST community, and we take these inaccurate statements in this recent Homeowner Alert communication very seriously. To protect the value of your Club and overall Member experience, The Club will aggressively pursue all legal remedies available to it should these communications continue. Sincerely, Mike Kelly, Executive Director Monika Radeva From: Dave <RDCONSULT@live.com> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 1:42 PM To: Planning WebMail Subject: PH. ITEM # A MAY 8 2012 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253 May 6, 2012 Regarding Public Hearing item A : Site Development Permit 2006-863 Amendment #1 Dear Planning Commissions, I am writing in reference to the Alta Verde proposed development as depicted by the City Staff report & submitted plans including Site plan attachment 1, Site aerial view and Tract 34243. In the above stated plans It is clear that these plans do not include a separate entrance or access into the PGA West private community. As a La Quinta resident living in PGA West within 20 homes of this proposed development I am concerned about the negative impact related to privacy and the safety and protection of my direct neighborhood if an unapproved breach in the perimeter wall is allowed. If there are any variations from the noted documents related to access to PGA West, I believe greater outreach to the affected residents on Hermitage, Spanish Hills and St. Andrews Way must be fully addressed This is not a PGA West Golf Club issue ( in search of revenue) but rather a residents neighborhood issue concerning safety and privacy. With these noted concerns addressed I am in support with staffs other recommendations regarding the overall Alta Verde development. Respectfully, Dave Ellis 80428 Hermitage, La Quinta CA. 92253 C: 714.955.2158 Monika Radeva From: Bob Heller <rbheller@earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 12:10 PM To: Planning WebMail Cc: Wally Nesbit Subject: AV Construction Site Development Permit 2006-863 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA. 92253 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863, AMENDMENT #1 DELIVERED BY EMAIL TO: planningCdla-cuinta.ong I have been a homeowner at PGA West for 12 years and am very concerned about some unanswered questions from the developer and PGA West on the proposed architecture of some of these homes plus the possible change in lot size within this development that has not been addressed by the developer. PGA West and all the surrounding communities are Spanish theme with tile roofs. Alta Verde Coral Mountain (AVCM) has proposed homes that are in direct conflict with the surrounding area. I understand that the commission has reviewed this plans, but I would like them to come to our area and view the surrounding developments and understand how these homes will stick out like a sore thumb. It is public knowledge that the builder and PGA West are in discussion on the installation of a golf cart gate and path between our properties. If this happens, then what effect will this have on the size of Lot 25 or is the builder offering to donate 1 building site to this project. Also, if he elects to use a portion of Lot 25, then what effect will this have on lots 17 to 25. My concern is these lots will have a very small lot line between the homes and will decrease the value of my home which overlooks these proposed homes. I do not feel it is unreasonable to receive a written response to these concerns. Bob Heller 80558 Hermitage La Quinta, CA. 92253 Bob Heller 80558 Hermitage La Quinta, CA. 92253 760 564 5571 SANTA ROSA TRAILS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 1398 Palm Desert, CA 92M (T) 760-568-0349 (F) 760-346-4349 city of La Quints May 3, 2012 Wallace Nesbit, Principal Planner 78-495 calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 From: Santa Rosa Trails Home Owners Association Regarding: Alta Verde Project MAY - 7 %Oi2 Ctl'y OF LA OUINTA 'LANNtN(",, C�F+,Td 9TMFN�' Dear Mr. Nesbit, The Santa Rosa Trails Home Owners Association supports the new Alta Verde Development that borders the east side of our community. We would like to exchange contact information with the Developer, as well as the Site Supervisor, to establish communications with our new neighbors. There are currently two concerns that remain unresolved between Santa Rosa Trails and the previous developer. The first is the fire lane gate. since the completion of the Santa Rosa Trails Development, it was determined that a secondary fire access into our community is no longer necessary. The previous developer had agreed to remove the fire access gate and complete the existing block wall. We would like the new developer to also honor this agreement. This will serve their needs as well because we do not believe one of the new home owners will want a fourteen foot gate opening into his/her back yard. The second is the -build-up of dirt along our property wall. When the previous developer graded the lots, they built-up the dirt along our wall up to two feet above the walls foundation. This is not a load bearing wall. Furthermore, the calcium in the soil has been leaching through the bottom two feet of the wall and creating a build-up of the white material on our side. This problem will only get worse as irrigation is installed for the new homes. we ask that the developers for Alta Verde lower the grading along our wall to the level of the walls foundation. We look forward to the new Alta Verde Development and appreciate the positive impact this will have on real estate sales and our local economy. Sincerly, The Santa Rosa Trails Home Owners Association