Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2001 05 22 PC
Twit 4 4 Q" Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City"s Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California May 22, 2001 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2001-079 Beginning Minute Motion 2001-011 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public; hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on May 8, 2001. B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................... CONTINUED - SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-693 Applicant........... JR Properties for The 99C Stores Location............ Northwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Jefferson Street, adjacent to Home Depot in the Jefferson Plaza. Request ............. Review of architectural and landscape plans for a shopping center to include a 23,000 square foot commercial store. Action ............... Resolution 2001- B. Item ................... CONTINUED - ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT #41, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-078, ZONE CHANGE 2001-101, SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E AMENDMENT #5, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-703, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 Applicant........... KSL Land Development Location............ The southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 Request ............. 1) Certification of an Addendum to an Environmental Impact Report; 2) a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change lands currently designated as Tourist Commercial to Low Density Residential; 3) a Specific Plan Amendment establishing development standards and design guidelines for the construction of 65 single family homes, a clubhouse, and amendment of the landscaping plant palette; and 4) development plans for the model homes; and subdivision of 17.82 acres into 65 single family lots and miscellaneous lots. Action ............... Resolution 2001-_, Resolution 2001-, Resolution 2000 , Resolution 2001-_, Resolution 2001- Resolution 2001- C. Item ................... TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29858, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant........... RJT Homes, LLC Location............ Approximately 800 feet south of Avenue 50 and west of Jefferson Street Request ............. Reconfiguration of seven acres within the southeast portion of the tract. Action ............... Resolution 2001 D. Item ................... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-058 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-693 Applicant........... La Quinta Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses Location............ East side of Dune Palms Road, between the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel and Westward Ho Drive. Request ............. Allow the use and review of development plans for a church facility on 2.39 acres. Action ............... Request to continue to July 10, 2001 9 PC/AGENDA E. Item ................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-418, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-077, ZONE CHANGE 2001- 100 Applicant........... NRI, La Quinta Limited Partnership Location............ Bounded on the north by Avenue 52, on the east by Monroe Street, on the south by Avenue 53 and east of the existing City limit lines. Request ............. A request to change the Riverside County zoning designation to Very Low Density Residential (RVL) and the General Plan designation to Very Low Density Residential (VLRD) for approximately 240 acres within the Sphere of Influence of the City of La Quinta for subsequent annexation. Action ............... Applications withdrawn. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................. TRACT MAP 29894 Applicant .......... Country Club of the Desert Location ........... The north side of Avenue 54 between Jefferson Street and Madison Street Request ............ Request to deviate from the Public Works Department approved mass grading plan. Action .............. Minute Motion 2001- Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner discussion regarding City Council meeting of May 15, 2001. X. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA May 8, 2001 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Robbins who asked Commissioner Butler to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Steve Robbins. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to reorganize the Agenda by taking Business Item "A" after Public Hearing Item "C". Unanimously approved. IV. CON13ENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of April 24, 2001. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. B. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Tyler to approve the Minutes of April 4, 2001 as submitted. Unanimously approved. C. Department Report: None. V. PRESENTATIONS: None. � G:\W PDOCS\PC 5-8-01.Wpd 1 ��"� i" i Z Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Continued - Environmental Assessment 94-287 Addendum, Specific Plan 94-025 Amendment #1 Conditional Use Permit 99-047, and Parcel Map 28610; a request of Agiotage Limited for Certification of an EIR Addendum for Specific Plan 94-025 allowing: 1) a new access road for an approved master planned residential community of 277 houses; 2) development of a private road on a hillside slope exceeding 20 percent; 3) amend the Green Specific Plan to allow a 3,000 foot long private access road along the north side of a 330.70 acre property to serve ten custom lots; and 4) a Tentative Parcel Map subdividing 330.70 acres into four parcels and other lettered street lots, for the property bisected by the future Jefferson Street, approximately a half mile south of Avenue 58 1 . Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked if the City Attorney's office would like to respond to the latest letter received from the Center for Biological Diversity. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez responded to a letter received from the Center for Biological Diversity on May 7, 2001, raising a number of issues similar to the letter the Commission received at the last public hearing. The City Attorney's office has reviewed the letter and their comments remain the same as they were with respect to the last public hearing. He might point out that in Mr. Hogan's letter there is a discussion of the Gilroy case and Mr. Hogan's discussion of the facts in that case are correct. One of the challenges of a city attorney is responding to these types of letters when they are presented at the last moment. Again, their position is the same. There is no new information that was not fully studied in the prior EIR with respect to the impact on Big Horn Sheep. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if there were any changes in the staff report. Staff noted the Resolution dates were changed and staff was requesting two condition modifications. Condition #29 should be replaced by adding a sentence allowing the undeveloped natural open space to drain in its historical drainage course. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez asked that the words "Specific Plan" be added to Condition #1 following FEIR 94-287 Addendum. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jim Schlecht, attorney for Agiotage Limited, stated he was present to acknowledge the efforts they have made over the years to try and G:AWPD0CSVPC5-8-01.wpd 2T 0! 0 7 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 reach an agreement with The Quarry. He wrote a letter to staff stating he had written to Mr. Morrow requesting him to respond in writing to a previous offer they had made to him. In his letter to staff he informed them that he had not heard from Mr. Morrow; however after he wrote that letter Mr. Morrow did call him. He repeated his request that they would like him to respond in writing with whatever he had to provide them with and Mr. Morrow declined. They have made very extensive efforts over a period of three or four years to reach an agreement and Mr. Morrow has declined at every step to try and work this out in some way that they believe is reasonable. As they were unable to reach an agreement, they pursued this alternative to see if they can do something with this property. 4. Mr. David Hogan, Center for Biological Diversity, stated his comments would be brief as most of their concerns were raised at the prior public hearing. He would, however, like to respond to some other points made by Assistant City Attorney Ramirez at the last meeting. The concerns raised in their first letter are not time barred in this situation under CEQA. The best example of this is that Fish and Game back in 1995 requested that the applicant and/or City provide a detailed mitigation plan of how the project impacts on the Big Horn were going to be mitigated up front as part of the subsequent EIR for public review and analysis. That was never complete and that is certainly relevant today because the same mitigation, that is a future unknown mitigation plan is still relied on here for mitigation for impacts from this particular action, the Addendum. The rationale of the CEQA court decision, as pointed out by the attorney, in the case of Chaparral Greens vs. City of Chula Vista, also does not apply to the Green project. In that court case it only addressed new information that was provided the Council prior to certification of the EIR, not after. In this case they have provided significant new information in evidence of changed circumstances since approval of the original 1995 EIR. In contrast here, there is significant new information and changed circumstances now available for Big Horn in relation to the Green project and those include, just to reiterate, significant decline of the Martinez Canyon ewe group since 1995; Federal listing as Endangered Species in 1998; Expert Recovery Team Essential Habitat identification in the year 2000; the formal Critical Habitat designation by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2000; and the Big Horn Institute Urban Effects Study in 1999 or 2000. He also wanted to emphasize the Critical Habitat issue he did not G:\WPDOCS\PC 5-8-01 . wpd 3 - (i Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 point out in his last letter, which was that Critical Habitat was in fact, designated over a portion of this site. He did not have the detailed maps to identify this at the time and have since got those and the portion of the project site to be impacted by this new access road to access the back lots and the back lots are all within designated Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat being those areas identified by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be essential for the conservation of the species and that is survival and recovery of the species as required by the Endangered Species Act. All this information clearly illustrates the need for a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. The last thing was that he wanted to clarify a comment made at the last meeting where he quoted Mr. Jim DeForge of the Big Horn Institute over sheep number in the Martinez Canyon ewe group, and in response Commissioner pointed out that there had been a quote in the newspaper previously talking about how sheep numbers had been up in 'both ranges. He spoke with Jim DeForge specifically and he wanted to clarify that what he meant by that quote was that the sheep numbers had been up and that is only lambs north of Highway 74 in both ranges meaning the northern Santa Rosa Mountains and San Jacinto Mountains. The sheep population numbers are down in the Santa Rosa Mountains south of Highway 74. It is an important distinction because the primary recovery unit of the species, how we will be able to judge whether or not the species is coming back from the brink of distinction, is whether or not ewe group population numbers are rising, not necessarily only populations of sheep in Anza Borrego State Park or Mexico. We need to know that all ewe groups are actually recovering and this is an important population in the southern Santa Rosa Mountains, Martinez Canyon ewe group. Thank you for your consideration. 5. Mr. Bill Morrow, representing the Quarry, stated that contrary to Mr. Schlecht's comments in his letter to the City, Mr. Morrow made a proposal in 1998, at which time they had meetings and turned down the proposal. Since that time he has met with Mr. Green, his wife and Mr. Anderholt, an attorney, on the site, in the last six weeks and made a proposal to them and has not had a response to that proposal. Since the last Commission meeting when it was suggested they get together, there has no request been made by Mr. Green or any of his people, to do so. They would be glad to do that if in fact they were asked to do, but were not. We have made a proposal and it has not been responded to. 4 G:AWPDOCSVPC5-8-01.wpd ��� Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 6. Commissioner Butler stated that the attorney for Mr. Green has given the Commission verification that he has corresponded with him and yet there is no written responses from Mr. Morrow. Mr. Morrow stated he did not accept the reimbursement agreement of 1998, and stated only verbally that he did not agree with it and there is no paper trail that states that. He has seen correspondence from the Green party trying to solve some of these problems and he does not see anything in writing stating that he disagrees with that. Why does it have to be verbal on his side and written on Mr. Greens' side if he so adamantly disagrees. Mr. Morrow stated he is not an attorney and therefore does not get involved in that. The meetings they had after these letters, which occurred in Palm Desert with Mr. Green and sometimes Mr. Schlecht, they were very vocal as to the fact that they thought their offers were terribly unreasonable and did not justify a written response. To say that they were not responded to is totally incorrect. He never thought it was necessary to respond in writing. They met for an hour or so and it was pretty apparent when they left that meeting that they were not agreeing with anything. He is waiting for their offer, a rebuttal or counteroffer from the offer he made personally to Mr. Green six weeks ago. Commissioner Butler noted that is not in writing. Mr. Morrow . stated he understood that, but that is the fact. 7. Commissioner Kirk asked for clarification as to what has happened between the two parties. Mr. Morrow stated he had initiated the phone calls to Mr. Schlect and had not received a response. He called back and they did talk and told him at that time they were available to meet. He had made an offer and there was no response. 8. Mr. Craig Bryant, Winchester Development, stated that as a point of clarification, his company represented both parties to obtain specific plan approval and the development of The Quarry. During the process of the Green Specific Plan, the Planning Commission and City Council at that time, went out to the site and viewed the area with respect to the road alignment that was being considered at that time. Both entities agreed there would never be a road there because of the scaring of the earth and what it would take to put a road there. In lieu of that, they suggested both parties get together and solve the road in terms of a common entrance for both of them to use, that being through The Quarry. To him the G:AWPDOCSVP�C5-8-01 .wpd 5 003 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 relevancy of this meeting may or may not be within the purview of this body, but one thing is very clear, there was a promise made by both the Planning Commission and City Council that there would never be a road that goes in that direction on that course. How the two parties get together and work this out relative to a common access seems to be something they have to decide between themselves. 9. Commissioner Abels stated he was on the Commission at that time and he does not remember any promise at that time. 10. Commissioner Kirk stated he remembers going to the site, but is not sure it is the same field trip. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that field trip was in reference to the Hillside Ordinance and boulder fields. He did not remember any other field trip. 11. Commissioner Butler stated he was on a field trip and did go into The Quarry to look at those ten lots. Staff stated yes, in regard to the Hillside Ordinance. 12. Chairman Robbins stated the initial discussions were in 1994. 13. Commissioner Kirk stated that if this was the same field trip there was no promise made at that time in regard to a road. 14. Mr. Bryant stated the field trip he was referring to was several years ago and was thoroughly discussed at that time and should be referenced in the City Council minutes of that field trip. He would suggest the minutes be reviewed. 15. Mr. Schlecht, attorney for Mr. Green, stated he was involved with the project at that time and had many discussions with Mr. Bryant and there never was any discussions regarding the road. The issue of their having access through The Quarry came up when they discovered a public street was being abandoned. They rnade the issue before the City Council and perhaps the Planning Commission and the City then required The Quarry to supply them with an easement, which they did. They have an easement to go through The Quarry, but the problem is that the City, at that time, indicated that they would have to work out a reimbursement agreement with The Quarry to reimburse them for the cost of that road and that is where the issue is today. G:\WPDOCS\PI"5-8-01 wpd 6 009 — — �wwww� •^n.�wweR mwwwwnw Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 16. Commissioner Kirk asked what the difference was between the two offers made between the two. Mr. Schlecht stated they offered Mr. Morrow $800,000 and Mr. Morrow wanted $2.7 million. Mr. Morrow was correct, he made it very clear on the phone that his client was not interested in an oral offer. First of all in a real estate offer it is ordinarily done in writing. He did not make it in writing and we told him we were not interested in his two lots and would he be interested in talking about more than two lots and Mr. Morrow stated absolutely not. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it is not the Commission's responsibility to resolve the issue between the two parties, but to address the applications before them. 17. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 18. Commissioner Butler stated he concurs with staff in regard to the issue between the two parties. However, based on what is before them, he would grant the applicant's request because without the road he is landlocked and he should have the right to access his property. He would, however, like a condition added that if they do resolve the issue, the road would not be developed. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated he would recommend against a condition that basically removes the approval pending an agreement being reached between the two parties. That would place the City in the position of being an arbitrator with respect to this agreement. Commissioner Butler stated his concern is that if they approve the road and then they reach a settlement, they could still build the road. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez skated he would review the condition and report back to the Commission. 19. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern is that the conditional use permit is written in such a way that the developer has a blank check. In order for him to support it he would need more details in regard to where and how the road would be constructed. 20. Commissioner Abels stated he concurs with both Commissioners Butler and Abels. 21. Commissioner Kirk stated there have been applicants before the Commission before where all parties were not in agreement and the Commission would like to find a way to please everyone, but maybe the best circumstance in this instance is to not please anyone. He believes Commissioners Butler and Tyler raised good G\WPD0CSTC5-8-01 .wpd 7 "" f U �_I Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 points. He would suggest that even though the City does not want to be a mediator, the City has put themselves in that position with the original approval. We made it clear that we wanted the access to go through The Quarry, so we inserted ourselves into this discussion and into this debate. It would be nice if they could create a framework for some sort of an agreement. However, it appears there are two different styles here. One where the applicant prefers to work with his attorney who structures typical real estate deals and then Mr. Morrow who likes to sit down and work directly with the owner and find a common agreement. He agrees with Commissioner Butler that he would like to condition this to cause the parties to come up with an agreement. If this is not possible, he is leaning toward not approving the applicant's request. The precedent it could establish in developing in our hillsides is real and could open up additional development opportunities. This road is not necessary for the development of the Green property; is necessary for the development of a very few lots on the Green property as compared to the entire project. In regard to Mr. Hogan's concerns he would side with him on some concerns, but does not feel it is necessary to open the EIR. However, the impacts are significant enough to reject the applicant's request. 22. Chairman Robbins stated this was brought to them because the applicants were unable to resolve the problem. He agrees that putting the Commission in the middle of a dispute between two developers is not good. This is a small portion of the project: and should not make or break the project. In regard to the environmental issues, he wants to make it clear that he finds the tactics of the Center for Biological Diversity deplorable to him. They are trying to blackmail an entire project over a relatively small change and if they truly feel that there is new evidence or changed conditions, then they should file a lawsuit and challenge the entire EIR. If there are going to be impacts to the sheep, the impacts are there whether or not the road is part of the project. Tying their reasons to the road is just a basic no growth issue. If this was the only issue he would be voting for the amendment to the EIR. 23. Commissioner Butler stated he would not want to have the road approved just for purpose of developing the ten lots, but the project was originally approved with the ten lots and the assumption that those ten lots would be accessible. Now we have another issue being raised in that if they do not approve the ten lots, or access to them, are they opening themselves up to another G:\WPD0CS\PC5-8-01.wpd g 01.E Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 problem by denying this project the value of those properties? If they deny the road and they land lock the developer are they denying something they have already approved. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the original Conditions of Approval allows them to develop the ten lots with access through The Quarry which does not land lock these lots, if they can work out a deal. They have an easement and it is an issue of how much they want to pay. If this is not approved the original approvals and conditions still govern this project. 24. Commissioner Kirk asked if this would be a "taking" if denied. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated no. The parcels have access. They have legal rights. They have an easement. The prior condition was worded in such a way that it was an agreement to agree. On an inverse condemnation claim, we do not have a denial of use, nor do we have any sort of land lock situation. What is being discussed here is the valuation of this cost sharing. Although he has not had the opportunity to analyze the issue, his view is that there is no inverse liability for purposes of land lock issue. 25. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Assistant City Attorney had any concerns regarding Commissioner Butler's suggestion. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated he did, but unfortunately he would not be able to articulate on them in light of not being able to look at the original condition. His view is that there is an opportunity prior to the City Council hearing for staff to look at it as to whether or not we have a denial and appeal by the applicant or that condition is imposed and it goes to the City Council. 26. Commissioner Butler stated that based on what he has heard from staff, he would not even propose the condition. 27. Chairman Robbins asked if the Commission determined to not allow the road, would they then not approve the Amendment to the EIR, Conditional Use Permit, or Specific Plan. If the Parcel Map was a lettered lot they would have to deny alli the applications. Staff stated the Parcel Map could be conditioned to remove the lettered lots which would remove the road. Discussion followed regarding the Parcel Map. 28. Commissioner Kirk stated he assumed the major motivation for the Parcel Map was to sell off the lots. GAWPDOCST C5-8-01 .wpd 9 012 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 29. Chairman Robbins stated the Parcel Map is motivated to sell lots off for development. 30. Commissioner Kirk stated that the circulation pattern had been changed to accommodate the road and he was not sure that was the best circulation pattern if the road was not approved. He asked if there was a parcel map presently on the project. Staff stated this Parcel Map defines the toe of slope to divide the hillside area from the developable land and also includes the road. 31. Chairman Robbins stated it appears there is some benefit in approving the parcel map. 32. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Addendum was denied, could they approve the parcel map. Community Development Director .Jerry Herman stated yes, if the road was removed the parcel map would comply with the original Specific Plan approvals. 33. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-058 denying certification of an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report 94-287. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 34. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-059, denying Conditional Use Permit 99-047. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 35. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-060, denying approval of Specific Plan 94-025, Amendment #1 . a. Remove any conditions that pertain to the access road. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. G:\WPD0CS\PC5-8-01.wpd 10 `,J v 013 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 36. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-061, recommending approval of Parcel Map 28610, as recommended. a. Lot "B" road shall be deleted. b. Condition #29: Stormwater falling on land developed for beneficial use, including common areas and roadways, during the peak 24-hour period of a 100 year storm shall be retained on site. The tributary area for which the developer is responsible shall extend to the centerline of the adjacent public streets. Storm water falling on undeveloped land dedicated as natural open space shall continue to drain into its historical drainage course. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. B. Conditional Use Permit 2001-059; a request of Sprint PCS Imperial Irrigation District for the installation of telecommunication apparatus to be located on an existing 100 foot high tower at 81-600 Avenue 58. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the tower was already 100 feet in height. Staff stated yes and it was setback on the site. 3. There being no further questions nor any other public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the issue for Commission discussion. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) tower was available to be shared and if IID agreed. Staff clarified that IID was aware, signed the application, and approved of the use of the tower. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-062 approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-059, as recommended. G:AWPD0CSVPC5-8-01.wpd Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. C. Site Development Permit 2001-701 - Eagles Bend; a request of CRV La Quinta 70, LLC, Peter Bilicki for review of architectural plans for two new prototype residential units with three facades each to be located at the northwest corner of Bellerive and Winged Foot within PGA West. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the reference to a five foot sideyard setback was specified in the PGA West Specific Plan. Staff stated it was correct per the Specific Plan and the Zoning Code. Commissioner Tyler questioned Condition #2, as it appeared to be missing something. Should it not say it would expire unless the work is started before the expiration date. Staff stated they would reword the condition to be more clear. Commissioner Tyler questioned Condition #4 where staff has conditioned the project for less than what the applicant is proposing. If they are willing to provide more than required, it should be recognized. Staff would modify the condition to reflect the applicant's request. 3. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Peter Bilicki, the applicant, stated this would be in -fill project that would finish out this community. 4. Commissioner Kirk questioned the purpose of the recess for the garage door on Plan 2B & 2C. Mr. Bilicki stated it was to break up and relieve the facade instead of having a traditional flat wall. It creates a shadowing effect and undulates back and forth. 5. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there was any Commission discussion. 6. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-063 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-701, as submitted. G:\W PD0CS\PC 5-8-01 . wpd 12 ...,.. U� Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 a. Condition #4A.and B deleted. b. Condition #2 add language regarding expiration. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Site Development Permit 2001-704 - The Estates; a request of Estates 18 LLC, Peter Bilicki for review of an 18 lot development of two prototypes with three and two facade treatments, respectively, and landscape design plans for property located along Peninsula Lane within PGA West. Chairman Robbins asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, or the applicant, and no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 2001-010 approving Site Development Permit 2001-704 as recommended. Unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED: D. Tentative Tract Map 30136; a request of SRHI, LLC (Reilly Homes) for a for review of a subdivision of 18.94 acres into 62 single family and other miscellaneous lots located on the east side of Madison Street, abutting both sides of Legends Way and west of Mountain View within PGA West. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There were any questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Scott McCann, representing the developer, stated they accepted the conditions as proposed and was available for any questions. G:\WPD0CS\PC5-8-01.wpd 13 J " 0 �, Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 3. There being no questions of the applicant, nor any other public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there was any Commission discussion. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-064 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 30136, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. E. Site Development Permit 2001-693; a request of JR Properties for The 990 Stores, for review of architectural and landscaping plans for a shopping center to include a 23,00 square foot commercial store located at northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Highway 111 . 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated the applicant had requested a continuance to May 22, 2001. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to continue Site Development Permit 2001-696, to May 22, 2001. Unanimously approved. F. Addendum to Environmental Assessment #41 General Plan Amendment 2001-078 Zone Change 2001-101 Specific Plan 121-E Amendments Site Development Permit 2001-703 and Tentative Tract Mao 30125; a request of KSL Land Development for, 1) certification of an Addendum to an Environmental Impact Report; 2) a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change to change lands currently designated as Tourist Commercial to Low Density Residential; 3) a Specific Plan Amendment establishing development standards and design guidelines for the construction of 65 single family homes, a clubhouse, and amendment of the landscaping plant palette; and 4) development plans for the model homes and subdivision of 17.82 acres into 65 single family and miscellaneous lots to be located on the southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked if there was any public comment. G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-01.wpd 14 ,v 017 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 2. Mr. David Erwin, representing the La Quinta Country Club, stated he has read the staff report and it appears that most of his concerns are addressed. Their concerns are that the minimum standards for lot size are met. He sees no reason to reduce the lot size. He also requests that they ensure that all traffic concerns are addressed and the walls along Avenue 50 be compatible with the adjacent wall that it is in effect extending. He spoke with Mr. Hobbs, the developer of the houses, and it is his understanding that the size of the houses will be a minimum of 2,500 square feet, which is relatively compatible with the existing homes and he would like to have this included in the conditions. 3. Commissioner Butler asked for clarification on a question raised by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee in regard to the wall. Staff stated they were referencing a power wall used for interior courtyards. 4. Commissioner Tyler questioned the ten foot wall between the homes. 5. Planning Manager Christine di lorio informed the Commission that a request had been received to continue this item to May 22, 2001, and these questions could be addressed at that time. 6. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue the applications to May 22, 2001, as requested by the applicant. G. Environmental Assessment 2001-421 General Plan Amendment 2000- 073 Specific Plan 84 004 Amendment #4 Tentative Parcel Mao 20469 Amendment and Tentative Tract Map Amendments to 25154, 27835 27840 27952 28343 28640 28912 29043, 29283, and 294" 77; a request of Watson and Watson Engineering and Forrest Haag, ASLA, Incorporated for 1) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; 2) General Plan Amendment to modify Chapter 7, Policy 7-1.4.3 of the Infrastructure and Public Services Element to allow an exemption to the undergrouding of utility lines that are attached to joint -use 92 KV transmission lines; 3) Amendment #4 to Specific Plan 84-004 to establish new guidelines and standards for overhead utility lines, undergounding, and adding five acres to the 718 acre master planned community of 1,300 residential units oriented around two 18- hole golf courses; 4) a request to amend the Conditions of Approval for Parcel Maps and Tract Maps to eliminate the undergrounding of overhead G:\WPD0CS\PC 5-8-01 .wpd 15 013 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 utility lines on 92 KV transmission lines and; and 5) amending Tract 29457 to subdivide 283 acres into 265 residential and other common lots to be located south of Avenue 48, north of Avenue 50, west of Jefferson Street, and east of Washington Street within Rancho La Quinta Country Club. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. 2. Commissioner Tyler asked if this request had been approved by Council and this was "clean up" work. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the City Council had approved a request by Lundin to not underground their utilities at the corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. At that time Council stated others could apply for the same relief and this developer is doing so. This allows staff to clean up the General Plan and development regulations to allow this to happen. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Hastings Day Care received the same approval. Staff stated that was correct. A precedent was set but these tracts have not been approved. 3. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 4. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler questioned the different numbers used for kilovolts and where did they come from. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated Edison uses 66 KV and IID uses 92 KV. In staff's discussions with IID several years ago, they indicated they had capabilities of undergrounding anything below 34.5 KV, so staff used that number. Although they have nothing approaching that range, staff still used that number in case things changed. Commissioner Tyler stated that if the General Plan is to be changed, the 34.5 KV number should be used for consistency. 5. Commissioner Butler asked how the cost for undergrounding was determined. Staff stated ventilation would be required and IID did not have the equipment to maintain that type facility as it is extremely expensive. Commissioner Butler stated the cost would be passed onto the developer of each project until it was all completed, so that from a practical standpoint, he does not see it G:\WPDOCS\PC 5-8-01 .wpd 16 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 ever happening anyway. Staff stated this is what they understood for a long time until they learned it could be done but it is very expensive and in addition to the developer paying those costs, IID would then need to upgrade their equipment to maintain it. 6. Commissioner Abels asked staff to explain the uses on the poles. Staff explained that these are joint use poles that have cable TV, telephone lines, 22.5 KV and the top line is 92 KV. What this condition allows is that since all the poles could not come down, staff is agreeing to leave everything on the pole. 7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Forrest Haag, representing the applicant, stated he had questions on the conditions for the Specific Plan. Condition #53 is asking for a five foot lawn setback and should be 18 inches and Condition #68 in regard to the Fringe -Toed Lizard fee. As this property is within the Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Mitigation area it is already required to pay its fee. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated that due to the State Fish and Game Department not agreeing to the Agreement, the applicant is now required to do a 1603 Permit which calls for the biological study in addition to paying the fee. Discussion followed regarding the fee and study. 8. Commissioner Tyler asked what was proposed on the new five acre acquisition where it shows a 30-foot strip of land running down to Avenue 50. Mr. Haag stated it was an access easement that he understood was being abandoned and was being negotiated and may go away. 9. Commissioner Kirk stated the Fish and Game issue is a concern to him and asked if the City has to enforce the condition. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the applicant is the one responsible and ultimately would be paying the fine. Staff could remove the condition and it would be up to the applicant to comply with Fish and Game requirements. 10. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the issue for discussion. 1 1. Commissioner Tyler stated the requirement to underground all the perimeter wires has been a condition since 1984, and obviously the developer has bonded for it and passed that cost on to the G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-01.wpd 17 ' ` n [a I1 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 home buyers and now it becomes a profit windfall to the developer. If the Council wants it done later an assessment would be placed on the home buyer a second time. It seems intuitively wrong to grant this condition without some mitigation on the part of the developer. As far as the technology available, you just have to go to the City of Indian Wells and you do not see any power lines anywhere. It can be done even if it is costly. Discussion followed as to the history of undergrouding of lines. 12. Chairman Robbins noted some errors in the conditions and he wasn't sure whether they were relevant or not. Throughout most of the conditions there are requirements that are contrary to where the City has been trying to go in regard to the use of turf grass. Community Development Director Jerry Herman pointed out that all the tracts have been developed except for the new five acre tract before them. Chairman Robbins went over the conditions that needed to be corrected or changed. He pointed out that this project has the ability to use canal water for irrigation purposes but has chosen over the years to use very minimal amount of canal water. This may be an opportunity to require them to use additional canal water in lieu of ground water since this is back before the Commission for review. 13. Commissioner Tyler stated it was his understanding that the Commission was only to address the conditions on the new five acre site and the power lines. 14. Chairman Robbins stated that if it comes back to the Commission, they can reopen any part of the tract. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated he did not have all the background on these tracts, but as these tracts have been built they are vested and therefore, not all the conditions can be opened up. 15. Commissioner Kirk asked that if they are opening up the conditions, can't the Commission require changes in any area such as the landscaping. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated they could deal with specific conditions item by item. He asked what condition specifically would deal with the canal water. 16. Chairman Robbins stated the condition should be the same as what is being required of new golf courses which is that the primary source of irrigation water for the golf courses shall be G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-0l .wpd 18 021 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 canal water. The project has the ability to take canal water and has chosen not to do this. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the golf courses are built. Chairman Robbins stated they have the ability to use canal water right now without requiring any construction. This would only require a change in the way they operate the golf course. 17. Mr. Lloyd Watson, engineer for project, stated they do take canal water into the project for irrigating the golf course and they are in the process of upgrading that delivery. CVWD is installing a new water line in to Jefferson Street which will allow them to use even more. 18. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant was willing to have a condition imposed that the primary source of irrigation water for the golf course shall be canal water. This would be at least 51 % of the water use for irrigating the golf course would be water From the canal system and not the ground water. Mr. Watson stated they are currently taking whatever water CVWD can deliver to them. 19. Commissioner Kirk suggested the condition read 51 % or the maximum amount CVWD can deliver. 20. Mr. Grady Sparks, representing Rancho La Quinta, stated he would like to explore this option, but it is his understanding that they were themselves moving toward this. Years back they were asked to mix their water usage which they have been doing. There are one or two months out of the year that you need to mix the water. It is more economical to use the canal water, but not having all the details or his agreement with CVWD before him at this meeting, he would like to take this under advisement to review the economics of this requirement. There has been problems with water delivery due to the street widening project on Jefferson Street. It is not that CVWD does not have it, it is just that during the construction and CVWD making their changes during the Jefferson Street construction. They have canal water as a primary source to their irrigation lakes on both golf courses. He would have no problem doing this on a voluntary basis, but would like to have time to address this. If there is a problem, they could raise it at the City Council. G:\WPDOCS\PC 5-8-01.wpd 19 , UG % Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 21. Commissioner Kirk asked if a blanket condition could be used that wherever applicable to all the tracts, a condition would be added requiring the primary source of water be canal water. 'Staff suggested this be added to the Specific Plan which would address the entire site. 22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-071 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-421, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-072, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 2000-073, as amended. a. General Plan Policy 7-1.4.3 amended as follows: The City shall require the undergrounding of all existing and proposed overhead electric lines, less than 34.5 kilovolts, to enhance the visual quality of the City. All existing utility lines attached and parallel to joint -use 92 Kv transmission power poles are exempt from undergrounding requirement. Should undergrounding costs become economically feasible in the future for high voltage transmission lines, the City, in conjunction with other public and private property owners, shall explore ways to remove the overhead lines from Image Corridors through such methods as an assessment district, etc. Until removal can take place vertical landscaping shall be installed outside the utility easement corridor to screen the power poles and guyed wires pursuant to the policies prescribed in Chapter 2 (Circulation Element) of the General Plan. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: Commissioner Tyler. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-073, recommending approval of Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #4, as amended. G:\ W PDOCS\PC5-8-01 .wpd 20 44 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 b. Add Condition relative to 51 % of the primary water source, or whatever CVWD can deliver, shall be canal water for the golf course. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 25. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-074, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 29457, as recommended. a. Condition #13: The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street entryway aligned with Avenue 49. Vacation of abutter's rights do not apply to CVWD for well sites. b. Condition #32: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the maximum pad elevation for the following lots shall be: Lot 259 45.6 feet Lot 260 46.4 feet Lot 261 47.1 feet Lot 262 48.0 feet Lot 263 48.7 feet Lot 264 49.2 feet Lot 265 49.8 feet ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-075, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 27952 and Tract 27952 Amendment #1, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. G:\WPDO CS\PC 5-8-01.wpd 21 .,. U 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 27. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-076, recommending approval of an Amendment to Parcel Map 20469 as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 28. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-077, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 27840, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 29. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-078, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 28343, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-079, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 28640, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 31. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-080, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 28912, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. G:\WPD0CS\PC5-8-01 .wpd 22 01 2 `� Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 32. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-081, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 27835, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES`. None. ABSENT: None. 33. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-082, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 29306, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 34. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-083, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 25154, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 35. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-084, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 29283, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of May 1 2001. G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-01.wpd 23 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held May 22, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. on May 8, 2001. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC 5-8-01 .wpd 24 027 27 PH #,A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 8, 2001 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-693 REQUEST: DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 65,300 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER TO INCLUDE A 23,000 SQUARE FOOT "99 CENT STORE" LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND JEFFERSON STREET, ADJACENT TO HOME DEPOT IN THE JEFFERSON PLAZA APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING BACKGROUND: JR PROPERTIES THE REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-325 PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO NEW INFORMATION PROVIDED WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. REGIONAL COMMERCIAL The Planning Commission continued this item to this meeting at the request of the applicant so as to review the plans as recommended by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee. Site Background As part of the approval process for the Home Depot in 1996, the City processed a Specific Plan for Jefferson Plaza. The Specific Plan was divided into two phases. The first phase was Home Depot, and the proposed project is part of the second phase. Also in the: second phase, and previously approved, are the I -Hop restaurant and the Jack in the; Box projects. The project proponent is proposing the construction of a 65,300 square foot shopping center, to include a 23,000 square foot 99 Cent Store. The project proponent has provided designs for the entire shopping center to the north, but only intends to G:AWPD0CSVPCStRpt99.WPD • „1 (, () develop the 99 Cent Store at this time. As other tenants are secured for the balance of the site, additional buildings (Retail A, B, C and D) will be constructed. The project site will be ,joined to the Home Depot project site via a driveway in the parking lot. The use is permitted in the Regional Commercial District; therefore, only the Site Development Permit is required of the applicant. Project Request The project consists of a series of 5 buildings facing Highway 1 1 1, west of the Home Depot building and totaling 65,300 square feet. The buildings will be located on the north side of the site, along the Channel. Immediately north of the site is the La Quinta High School. The center consists of 584 lineal feet of frontage. The site plan includes some articulation of building location, with Buildings "A" and "D" slightly recessed, and Building "B", "C" and the 99 Cent Store sited forward (Attachment 1). The intent and purpose of the Jefferson Plaza Specific Plan was to integrate independent: development on the site to create a cohesive development pattern. The applicant has proposed a site layout which conforms to the approved Specific Plan, but has significantly strayed from the architectural style detailed in that document. Architecture: and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) The ALRC reviewed this project at their meeting of May 2, 2001 (Attachment 2). A number of recommended conditions were placed on the architecture and landscaping of the proposed project. The applicant revised the plans as follows: The parapet roof was raised to a height of 26 feet on all sides of the building. 2. All roof cornice detail are now 18 inches in depth and match the design of the Home; Depot cornice. 3. The raised arch parapet of the 99 Cent Store building is reduced to 34 feet in height. 4. The split face block on all buildings within the proposed project extend to a height of 8 feet starting at one foot seven inches above grade and are included on the north, south, east and west project elevations. 5. The columns on either side of the storefronts of Buildings "A", "B", "C", "D" and the 99 Cent Store are faced with limestone to a height of 8 feet. No tile is proposed. 6. The magenta plastic awnings are eliminated and replaced with a single awning that does not extend beyond the entry columns of the 99 Cent Store (Attachment 3). '00444, G:\WPDOCS\PCStRpt99. WPD 7. The tree wells along the buildings' facades are expanded into planters with a minimum depth (north to south) of 8 feet. The length of each planter is varied. Public Notice: This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 26, 2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Public Agency Review: All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit can be made, as noted in the attached resolutions with the exception of: A. Consistency with the approved Specific Plan. The proposed project should be developed to be complementary to the architectural design of the Home Depot building, and be consistent with the Jefferson Plaza, Specific Plan, while providing more of a retail commercial atmosphere for users. Although improvements have been made, the project as currently proposed does not provide this improved level of design and does not blend with the majority of the character defining features of the Home Depot. A series of modifications to the plans are proposed to achieve this goal, as follows: The aipplicant has complied in part with the recommendations by the ALRC regarding the modifications to the building design in that the pilasters in front of each store entrance have been turned into columns, and extended to the curb, to create a covered arcade. This recommended condition, however, also requires that this treatment be imposed along the entire building facade, and that a shed roof be created above the arcade, tiled in the same grey tile as is proposed for the shed roods on Buildings "A" and "D". The shed roof has only been shown on the 99 Cent Store building, and is proposed to be tiled in blue, with magenta trim. This does not conform to the ALRC recommended condition of approval and is now recommended as Condition of Approval (Condition #35.A.). 2. The compound arch parapet on Building "B" and the 99 Cent Store are incompatible with the single graceful arch of the Home Depot facade. The proposed raised parapet arches on Building "B" and the 99 Cent Store, as well as all archways creating the arcade described in #1 above, along the facade, should be shaped to echo the arch defining the Home Depot entry. The revised plans do not show this amendment. Because the arcade was not included, and G:\WPD0CS\PCStRpt99.WPD 003 Ca1) because the design of the arch of the parapet does not comply, the plans must be amended to reflect the recommended condition accurately (Condition #35.B.). B. Site Design: Three site planning issues are as follows: The western wall of the 99 Cent Store building and the eastern wall of Building "C" form a triangle which is proposed to be inaccessible from the front of the project. This triangle will result in both a health and safety hazard, insofar as refuse is likely to collect there; and in a public safety hazard, insofar as its lack of visibility and accessibility violate the precepts of "defensible space." Condition #35.C. has been added which requires that a wall be erected between the north ends of Building "C" and the 99 Cent Store, or either of the two buildings be expanded to incorporate the triangular area into the floor plan. 2. The trash enclosure attached to Building "D" is inaccessible to Waste Management's vehicles. Condition #36 has been added requiring relocation of that trash enclosure. 3. The applicant has not submitted a photometric study to demonstrate that parking lot lighting will be within the parameters allowed by the Development Code. Condition #38 has been added to address this issue. C. Sign Program: The sign proposed for the facade of the 99 Cent Store is 9 feet in height, and 13 feet wide. This results in a sign area of 117 square feet on the building facade. In addition, signage willl be provided on the project monument sign. The requirements of the Specific Plain allow up to 50 square feet of signage, and a maximum height of 3.5 feet. Condition #40 requires that the facade signage be reduced to a height of 4 feet and a width of 7 feet. CONCLUSION: The Site Development Permit, as conditioned, represents an appropriate use of the parcel on which the project is proposed. The Site Development Permit, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding development in the Jefferson Plaza Specific Plan, and in conformance with City requirements. Findings for a recommendation for approval, as noted in the attached Resolution, can be made. G:\WPDOCS\PCStRpt99.WPD 004 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, approving Site Development Permit 2000-693, subject to the findings and conditions. Attachments: 1. Site (Plan, Elevations and landscaping plans 2. ALRC Minutes for May 2, 2001 3. Architectural Cross Section Prepared by: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner Submitted by: Christine di lori , P anni g Manager G:\WPDOCS\PCStRpt99. WPD 005 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT OF A 65,300 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER, INCLUDING A 23,000 SQUARE FOOT "99 CENT STORE" LOCATED WITHIN THE JEFFERSON PLAZA SPECIFIC PLAN. CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-693 APPLICANT: JR PROPERTIES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8`h 22nd day of May, 2001, hold duly noticed Public Hearings for JR Properties for review of a Site Development Permit to allow a 65,300 square foot shopping center, including a 23,000 square foot 99 Cent Store within the Jefferson Plaza Specific Plan area, more particularly described as: WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee for the City of La Quinta did, on the 2nd day of May, 2001 recommend approval of the proposed project, by adoption of Minute Motion 2001-024, subject to conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Site Development Permit: and The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies and programs relating to the Regional Commercial land use designation, and supports the development of larger scale commercial opportunities on Highway 111. 2. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with the Jefferson Plaza Specific Plan, as conditioned, which establishes development standards for the project. The project, as conditioned meets the City's standards for height, parking, lighting, and land use. 3. The proposed Site Development Permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with surrounding development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements, as conditioned. G:\WPDOCS\PCReso99.WPD " G) Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-693 The 99¢ Store - JR Properties May 22, 2001 4. The proposed Site Development Permit, as conditioned, complies with the architectural design standards for the Jefferson Plaza Specific Plan, and implements the standards and guidelines included in that document. 5. The proposed Site Development Permit, as conditioned, is consistent with the landscaping standards and palette in the Jefferson Plaza Specific Plan and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2001-693, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto; and 3. That the request has been assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 96-325 prepared for Specific Plan 96-027. No changed circurnstances or conditions and no new information provided would trigger the preparation of subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22nd day of May, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California D07 G:\WPDOCS\PCReso99.WPD C3� Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-693 The 990 Store - JR Properties May 22, 2001 ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 008 G A W PDOCS\PCReso99. W PD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-693 - 99 CENT STORE MAY 22, 2001 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. Projects disturbing 5 or more acres, or smaller projects which are part of a larger project disturbing 5 or more acres require a project -specific NPDES permit. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent (NOI) prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) is available for inspection at the project site. PROPERTY RIGHTS 3. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. ors G:MPD0MPCReso99C0ASDP.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-693 - 99 CENT STORE MAY 22, 2001 4. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 5. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 6. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City E=ngineer. 7. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 8. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall 010 G:AWPDOCSVPCReso99COASDP.WPD 2 �7 �)'r J) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-693 - 99 CENT STORE MAY 22. 2001 update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. GRADING 9. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the above conditions have been met. 10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geote:chnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. Slopes shall not exceed 3:1 in landscape areas unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 12. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 13. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 011. G:\WPDOCS\PCReso99 COAS D P.WPD 3 113 i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-693 - 99 CENT STORE MAY 22, 2001 14. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different tiimes. DRAINAGE 15. Applicant will provide an extension of the south bank Coachella Valley Storm Channel lining to the westerly property line as required by Coachella Valley Water District. 16. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plan for Jefferson Plaza, Specific Plan 96-027. Nuisance water shall be retained on -site and disposed of in an approved method. 17. The applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. UTILITIES 18. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 19. Parking facilities shall conform to the requirements of LQMC Chapter 9.150 20. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, ()12 G:\WPDOCS\PC Reso 99 COAS D P.WPD 4 1 ',� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-693 - 99 CENT STORE MAY 22, 2001 markings and other devices. 21. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 22. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 23. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic; loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.0" c.a.b. 24. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 25. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 26. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped areas shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 013 G'\WPDOCS\PCReso99COASDP.WPD 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-693 - 99 CENT STORE MAY 22, 2001 The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 27. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spiny irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. QUALITY ASSURANCE 28. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 29. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans„ specifications and applicable regulations. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENAPJCE 32. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on --site improvements. FEES AND DEPOSITS 33. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 0 f�,l 4 G: MPDOCSTC Reso99 COAS D P.WPD 6-` PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-693 - 99 CENT STORE MAY 22, 2001 34. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property or lots subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of the reapportionment. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 35. Prior to issuance of the first building permit the building elevations shall be revised as follows: A. The pilasters flanking the store fronts of each building shall be extended to the edge of sidewalk, and columns shall replace the pilasters to create a true arcade along the entire building facade. The roof of the arcade shall be covered with gray flat concrete tiles, and echo the arcade of the Home Depot building. B. The raised parapet of Building "B" and the 99 Cent Store entries, as well as all archways creating the arcade described in #1 above shall be redesigned to echo the single arch at the entry of the Home Depot C. In order to provide a safe environment, the project proponent shall construct a wall from the northeast corner of Building "C" to the northwestern portion of the 99 Cent Store. This wall shall be 26 feet in height, and shall be integrated into the elevations as described above. 36. The trash enclosure attached to Building "D" shall be relocated to ensure that it is adequately accessible to Waste Management of the Desert's vehicles. The revised location and design shall be reviewed and approved be the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits for Building D" 37. Amended elevations and site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits 38. Prior to the issuance of any building permit on the project site, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a photometric study which demonstrates that the parking lot lighting conforms to the Development Code. 39. All parking lot, landscaping and perimeter improvements shall be complete prior to the issuance of any final inspection for any building included in this approval. 017) G:AWPDO CSVPCRsso99COASD P.WPD 7 �� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-693 - 99 CENT STORE MAY 22, 2001 40. The maximum dimensions of the building -mounted sign of the 99 Cent Store shall be 4 feet in height and 7 feet in width. 41. No other signage is permitted with this approval. Signage for other buildings and/or tenants shall be submitted as part of a master sign program prior to issuance of building permits for Buildings "A", "B", "C" and "D". COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 42. The project proponent shall install suitable facilities to prohibit public access to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. 43. The project proponent shall obtain an encroachment permit from the District prior to any construction within the right-of-way of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. This includes, but is not limited to, surface improvements, drainage inlets, landscaping and roadways. 44. This project shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 55 and 82 of the District for sanitation service. 45. Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for review. oin G:\WPDOCS\PC Reso99 COAS D P.WPD 8 0 i±, ATTACHMENT #2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes May 2, 2001 th toam, would not allow vines to be attached. Mr. Forrest Haag, landscape arc ro ect, stated they used the trellis at the La Quinta Resort instead of the conven use of screws. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated that fo walls were not allowed in Palm Desert. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt elaborate n the problems they have with the "power wall" at PGA Wes Mr. Hobbs noted they were not on a zero lot, but had five of setbacks which gave them more room for landscaping. 5. Committee Member Bobbd t asked the height of the tower element. Staff stated 22 feet as oted on the site plan. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he li d the project. 6. Committee MerXber Cunningham stated he like the project. 7. Planning M nager Christine di lorio asked what the rear elevation would I k like as it will be seen from the street. Committee Memb Cunningham stated there was enough articulation that it did t matter. 8. 91mmittee Member Bobbitt stated his concern about the planting /of trees when there is not enough room for tree growth and how they become a maintenance issue. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2001-022 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001--70S, subject to the conditions. na—m . E. Site Development Permit 2001-693; a request of JR Properties for The 99C Stores for review of landscaping and architectural plans for a shopping center including a 23,000 square foot store. 1. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Mr. Jeff Rothbard, representing JR Properties, stated they agreed with Conditions #1-5. On Condition #6 they would like to request a reduction from eight feet to six feet on the split block. On oiVt G:\WPDOCS\ALRC5-2-0l .wpd 4 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes May 2, 2001 Conditions #7 and #8 they would like to discuss them as they relate to the awnings and the applicant's identify. Condition #10, the concern about the eight foot tree wells coming out into the drive aisles. On Condition #12, the location where staff has indicated the trees is the pedestrian access point out to the street. Planning Manager Christine di lorio clarified they had to provide access from a public sidewalk and currently Jack in the Box has a sidewalk to a certain point and staff was looking for this applicant to provide a circulation plan to identify the public access. Discussion followed regarding the pedestrian access and landscaping. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated that from a design standpoint, he would like to see that it is designed not to just meet the requirements so that it does become user friendly. Need to have a sensitivity to the design to show that it will be designed to be used. Staff stated they need to show access to Home Depot as well as from the street to their site. Mr. Rothbard stated his concern was keeping enough parking stalls and visibility from the street on to the tenants. They are finding it hard to find enough tenants for the remainder of the site because of the visibility from the street. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated that is due to the design of the property. The stores are in the back. You do want a sign that is 50-feet high so it can be seen and the community complains they do not want all the clutter. Therefore the store owner ends up reduce the rental costs. 5. Staff reviewed the conditions stating that there was no issue with Conditions #1-11. Condition #12 would be reworded to state, "Pedestrian access be designed with sensitivity with attractive landscaping." Staff clarified that they were in agreement with Conditions #1-5. The applicant is requesting Condition #6 be reduced in size for the split face block from eight to six. Commissioner Cunningham requested it remain at eight feet. 6. Staff stated they were asking that Condition #7 be amended to have all columns being faced with limestone up to eight feet and take on a feature that was proposed on Building "B". 7. Mr. Jim Berlin, representing The 99C Stores, stated one of the difficulties they face as a company, is that they originated the concept for this type of store. There are a lot of knock off stores out there and they regularly get phone calls from customers who 018 G:\WPDOCS\ALR.C5-2-01.wpd S Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes May 2, 2001 are confusing their store with the others. In order to distance themselves from the knock -off stores, they designed the awning and retrofitted their stores. The awning and tile on the pilasters are their identify. They can do something with the awning colors and perhaps put them closer against the wall. 8. Committee Member Cunningham asked if everyone of their store in all cities look exactly the same. Mr. Berlin stated no. Committee Member Cunningham asked that the applicant give some sensitivity to what La Quinta is trying to maintain in regard to architectural style. The problem is that with box stores, staff has made an effort to create some continuity between the buildings. 9. Mr. Berlin asked if they could duplicate the arch as Home Depot has and use the blue in a tubular design on the parapet that is flush to the building. Staff asked if it was an awning or structural component. Mr. Berlin stated it would be tubular steel or a metal sheet that would be flush with the parapet. Discussion followed regarding a potential design. 10. Committee Member Cunningham stated he was not opposed to the blue tile but on the individual columns because they were far enough from the street, it gives personal identity for the store that would tie into whatever is done with the signs. Staff suggested keeping Condition 7 as written and add Condition 8.A. stating "a blue tubular steel element similar to Home Depot, may be permitted above the storefront." Mr. Berlin stated this will give them more than what they are proposing. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated no, what they are proposing is more, but staff is not. Mr. Berlin stated they were not in agreement with what was being proposed. 1 1 . Committee Member Cunningham asked what businesses currently has awnings. Staff reviewed what was existing on the current storefronts in the area. Committee Member Cunningham stated that he would not object to an awning that was between the central columns, flush at the top and projected out two feet at the bottom. Discussion followed as to the look and location of the awnings. 12. Committee Member Cunningham asked if there was going to be a bike path along the rear elevation. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated staff will be requesting a wall with openings be G:AWPDOCS\ALRC5-2-0l wpd 6 019 04 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes May 2, 2001 constructed when it goes to the Planning Commission. Committee Member Cunningham stated his concern was that the whatever trees are planted they be able to sustain the growth until the bike path is constructed. 13. Committee Member Bobbitt asked where the air conditioning units would be placed. Staff stated on the roof and would be screened. 14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt adopt Minute Motion 2001-024 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-693, subject to the conditions as modified. a. Condition #12: Pedestrian access with sensitivity to attractive landscaping. b. Condition 8.A: a single awning not extending beyond the columns of the central columns of The 990 Store may be permitted, flush with the columns and extending two feet out at the bottom. VI. CORRkSPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMM ITTEL,,MEMBER ITEMS: None Vill. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adjourn t regular meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee to a reg r meeting to be held on June 6, 2001. This meeting was adjourned at 11:40 a.m. on 2, 2001. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California 020 G:AWPDOCS\ALRC5-2-0Lwpd 7 - �� 0--,TOP OF CORNICE ARCHED CORNICE: SIGNAGE: ARCHED BLUE A5 FABRIC LI M EST01 PLASTER FINdSH " EL. 0'--U SCALE: 1'=1 /8' 1()'-5" ATTACHMENT #3 T D2 1. O�7 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 22, 2001 CASE NO.: ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #41, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-078, ZONE CHANGE 2001- 101, SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E, AMENDMENT #5, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-703 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE LANDS CURRENTLY TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 65 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, COMMON AREA FACILITIES AND AMENDMENT OF THE LANDSCAPING PLANT PALETTE; DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE MODEL HOMES; AND SUBDIVISION OF 17.82 ACRES INTO 65 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS. LOCATION: THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND AVENUE 50. APPLICANT: KSL DEVELOPMENT CORP. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #41 WAS PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED APPLICATIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS RECOMMENDED CERTIFICATION OF THE ADDENDUM. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: TOURIST COMMERCIAL PROPOSED: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL G:AWPDDCSVPCStfrptSP121 E.wpd BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission at its May 8, 2001, meeting continued this item at the request of the applicant. Staff met with the applicant to discuss their issues and staff is recommending the report and conditions of approval remain as originally presented (Attachment: 1). The project site is located at the southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 (Attachment: 2). The proposed project is currently developed for a portion of the La Quinta Resort Golf Course, and is also being used for employee parking for the La Quinta Resort. The lands currently used for parking are proposed for conversion from Tourist Commercial to Low Density Residential. The proposal is for single family detached units on 6,000 square foot minimum lots. Project Request In addition to the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #41, the following applications have been filed: 1 . A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change a six acre portion of the project surrounded by 11 acres already designated as single family residential from its current Tourist Commercial designation to Low Density Residential. 2. A Specific Plan to establish development standards and design guidelines for the construction of 65 single family homes and common area amenities, and to amend the approved plant palette (Attachment 3). 3. A Site Development Permit for the model home elevations, site landscaping, and construction of perimeter improvements for the site. 4. A Tentative Tract Map to divide 17.82 acres into 65 single family lots, a common pool and clubhouse lot, and miscellaneous lots for roads and open space. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are required to allow single family dwelling units on the site. The Specific Plan provides the design guidelines and development standards for the single family homes. A Site Development Permit has also been submitted to include the three models of house planned for the site, as well as perimeter and entry landscaping. A separate Site Development Permit will be required for the pool building or clubhouse for the northwestern corner of the project. The Site Development Permit details the architectural style of the buildings, and the types of materials which will be utilized. The variations to the City's zoning standards are discussed individually below. LI 1 G:\WPDOCS\PCStfrptSP121 E.wpd 0 9 Project Description The Specific Plan includes modifications only in two areas: the design guidelines and development standards for the affected Planning Area, and the broadening of the landscaping palette (Attachment 4). The design guidelines and standards allow for the construction of single family homes and associated uses. The homes' architecture is similar to the Mediterranean architecture found elsewhere in the Resort. Materials to be utilized include smooth stucco, wooden rafters, gates and shutters, wrought iron grills and clay roof tile. The design includes raised window details, stucco recesses and an optional roof terrace. The design also incorporates curved walls and exterior stairs around a central courtyard. The applicant has provided considerable articulation on all sides of the residences, which will create visual interest and break up the building mass. Doorways and windows include arches and pot ledges, to provide further detail. The color palette is proposed to be neutral, and consist primarily of earth tones. The plant palette is consistent with that found in other parts of the Resort. Stamped concrete is proposed for the entry of the project site. A perimeter wall is proposed, but no berming is shown on the landscaping plan. The Tentative Tract Map divides the 17.82 acres into 65 single family lots, one common area pool and clubhouse lot, and miscellaneous lots for roads and open space areas. The Tract Map has been conditioned to include all necessary perimeter roadway improvements. The Tract Map is consistent with the proposed Specific Plan. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee: The ALRC reviewed the proposed landscaping and building elevations at their meeting of May 2, 2001, and recommended approval subject to conditions (Attachment 5). Public Notice: This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 26, 2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Public Agency Review: All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been rnade part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings necessary to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan and Site Development Permit can be made, as noted in the attached Resolutions with the exception of: 003 G:\WPDOCS\PCStfrptSP121 E.wpd 051 1 ^� ii 05 l A. Specific Plan: 1 . Development Standards: The applicant has stated that a small clubhouse may be constructed where the poolhouse is currently shown, in the northwestern corner of the; property. The Specific Plan currently does not allow this use. Condition #15 (SP) has been added to address this issue. The minimum lot size is shown in the Specific Plan to be 6,500 square feet in this Planning Area. Since some lots on the accompanying tract map do not meet this standard (the smallest lot is 6,022 s.f.), Condition #17 (SP) has been added to accommodate the smallest proposed lot. No signage is proposed as part of the Specific Plan submittal for this portion of the project area. Condition #19 (SP) has been added to address this issue. The landscaping palette in the currently adopted Specific Plan significantly limits the plant types permitted on the site. The landscaping plan does not conform to that plant palette. A broadened plant palette has been submitted (Attachment 4), and is to be included as an approved landscaping palette for the entire Specific Plan (Condition #20, SP). B. Site Development Permit 1. Landscape Design: The landscaping plan does not specify either the: size of proposed plants, or the number of each plant proposed. In order to ensure that the final plans are consistent, Conditions #1 and #2 (SDP) are proposed. This will ensure that staff can effectively review the final plan for conformance with this approval. The perimeter wall will require articulation in order to provide visual interest. Condition #3 (SDP) has been added to address this issue. CONCLUSI0W The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan Amendment, Site Development Permit and Tentative Tract Map, as conditioned, represent an appropriate use of the parcel on which they are proposed. The Specific Plan and Site Development Permit, as conditioned, are compatible with surrounding development in the immediate area, and in conformance with City requirements. Findings for a recommendation for approval, as noted in the attached Resolutions, can be made. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-, recommending to the: City Council Certification of an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #41. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-, recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-078. 004 GAWPDOCS\PCStfrptSP121 E.wpd `l,%a 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2001-101. 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 121-E, Amendment #5, subject to the findings and conditions. 5. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-, recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 2001-703, subject to the findings and conditions. 6. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-, recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 30125, subject to the findings and conditions. Attachments: 1 . Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2001 2. Location Map 3. Specific Plan 121-E Document (Large exhibits - Commissioners only) 4. Amended Landscape Palette (Large exhibits - Commissioners only) 5. ALRC Minutes for May 2, 2001 Prepared by: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner Submitted by: JL Christine di lorio, PlIfining Manager 005 G:\WPDOCS\PCStfrptSP1 21 E.wpd 053 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #41 PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-078, ZONE CHANGE 2001-101, SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E -- AMENDMENT #5, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-703 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 APPLICANT: KSL DEVELOPMENT CORP. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 8th and 22nd day of May, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearings to consider an addendum to Environmental Impact Report #41 for General Plan Amendment 2001-078, Zone Change 2001-101, Specific Plan 121-E -- Amendment #5, Site Development Permit 2001-703 and Tentative Tract Map 30125 located at the southeast corner of Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive, and more particularly described as follows: APN's 658-190-004, 773-020-033, 770-020-021, 773-020-034 WHEREAS, said Addendum has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1 970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-078, Zone Change 2001-101, Specific Plan 121-E -- Amendment #5, Site Development Permit 2001-703 and Tentative Tract Map 30125 could have a significanL adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the addendum and included in the conditions of approval; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Addendum: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-078, Zone Change 2001-101, Specific Plan 121-E -- Amendment #5, Site Development Permit 2001-703 and Tentative Tract Map 30125 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by the Addendum. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-078, Zone Change 2001-101, Specific Plan 121-E -- Amendment #5, Site Development Permit 2001-703 and Tentative Tract Map 30125 will not have the potential to degrade the quaalitcl06 G:\WPDOCS\PCRes.KSL-EAAdd.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Addendum to EIR #41 May 22, 2001 of the: environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animall community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-078, Zone Change 2001-101, Specific Plan 121-E -- Amendment #5, Site Development Permit 2001-703 and Tentative Tract Map 30125 do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Addendum. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-078, Zone Change 2001101, Specific Plan 121-E -- Amendment #5, Site Development Permit 2001-703 and Tentative Tract Map 30125 will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 5. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-078, Zone Change 2001-101, Specific Plan 121-E -- Amendment #5, Site Development Permit 2001-703 and Tentative Tract Map 30125 will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 6. There: is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 7. The Planning Commission has considered the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #41 and the Addendum reflects the independent judgement of the City. 8. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 9. The liocation and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. 007 G:\WPDO CS\PCRes. KSL-EAAdd. wpd V �J Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Addendum to EIR #41 May 22, 2001 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Addendum. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #41 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Addendum text on file in the Community Development Department. 3. That the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #41 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22th day of May, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: TERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 008 G:\W PDOCS\PC Res. KSL-EAAdd. wpd ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (CEQA GUIDELINE 15164) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-078, AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2001-101, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-703 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 MAY 8, 2001 G:\WPDOCS\EIRAdd KSL121 E.WPD 009 057 The City of La Quinta, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") has prepared this Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15164. This is an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #41 ("EIR") that the County of Riverside certified in 1975 for the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan, SP 121-E. The purpose of this Addendum is to document certain changes to the project which will be implemented through the following land use approvals: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-78, AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2001-101, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-70 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 These are collectively referred to as "the Revised Project." The Revised Project consists of 17.82 acres of the 622 acre project. Six acres of the Revised Project area is currently designated Tourist Commercial and the remaining 11 acres is designated as Low Density Residential. The Revised Project will convert currently vacant lands of which six acres os being used as interim employee parking areas to low density residential lots, and ancillary facilities including a clubhouse and associated amenities. The City has determined that the proposed residential development will be consistent with the density and character of the adjacent residential development, and will be consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan and Specific Plan 121-E, as amended. The Revised Project does not represent an increase in the total number of units allowed within the Specific Plan boundary. The Specific Plan "cap" on residential units remains 622 units in the low density residential category. The approvals requested include; the following: 1. General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to change the designation on six acres of the 17.82 acres from Tourist Commercial to Low Density Residential; 2. Specific Plan Amendment to incorporate the General plan Amendment and Zone Change above, and to expand the landscaping palette within the Specific (Plan; 3. Site Development Permit to review the design of three residential unit types for the proposed homes within the same 17.82 acres; and 4. Tentative Tract Map to divide the 17.82 acres into 65 single family lots, a clubhouse lot, and a number of numbered lots for streets and common open space areas. The City has compared the impacts of the Revised Project with those impacts analyzed in the EIR and finds as follows: 010 U5o G:\WPDOCS\EIRAdd KSL121 E.WPD U Aesthetics - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The previously approved Tourist Commercial designation will be replaced with less dense housing. The scale, height, and mass will all be reduced within this area as compared with the original project. The elimination of employee parking will be a beneficial impact for the area. Agriculture Resources - Not applicable Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Hydrology and Water Quality - Impacts lower than those previously analyzed. Tourist commercial development can be expected to generate an equivalent amount of water usage as residential development. The single family homes on the site, however, will create a lower percentage of impervious surfaces, which will result in more surface water percolation. Public Services - Impacts lower than those previously analyzed. The impacts associated with Tourist Commercial development would have been expected to be greater than those associated. Recreation - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The Revised project will include on - site clubhouse facilities, and will be surrounded by golf course. The overall number of residential units within the total project will not increase. Impacts to recreationali facilities will not increase over those already analysed. 011. osr G:\WPDOCS\EIRAddKSL121 E.WPD Air Quality - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. Although residential development generates a high number of trips per unit, tourist c o m m e r c i a l development is also a high trip generator. Since the certification of the original EIR, PM10 has become an issue of concern in the Coachella Valley. The City requires the development of PM10 management plans, which are reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. The project proponent will be required to submit such a plan, which will provide sufficient mitigation to assure that PM10 impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. The construction air quality impacts will be reduced for single family homes over those analyzed for tourist c o m m e r c i a l development in the EIR, since single family home construction disturbs less ground, is of shorter duration, and requires less equipment. G:\WPDOCS\EIRAdd KSL121 E.WPD - Land Use Planning - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The Revised Project is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan and the Specific Plan, and continues the development pattern established in the Specific Plan. Transportation/Traffic- Impacts less than those previously analyzed. The single family units will not increase the total number of units to be constructed within the project, and will therefore not increase the number of residential trips to be generated by the project at buildout. The elimination of the tourist commercial development will reduce the overall number of trips to and from the project at buildout. Biological Resources - impacts in addition to those previously analyzed. Since certification of the original EIR, species of concern in the Coachella Valley have increased. A preliminary biological resource analysis conducted for the Revised Project indicated the presence of a mesquite hummock on the site, which will be eliminated by the construction of the homes. Mesquite hummocks provide important habitat to a number of species of concern. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: Prior to construction or site preparation activities, the project developer shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CDFG and an appropriate non-profit organization whose purpose is to acquire and manage land for the purpose of protecting special status plants and wildlife. This MOU shall provide the organization chosen the financial resources necessary to purchase and manage 1.1 acres of mesquite hummock habitat in the Biological Resources, cont'd - The Revised project also was identified as potential habitat for Coachella Valley Fringe - toed Lizard and Coachella Valley Milk Vetch. Site surveys are being conducted, and the project proponent will be required to conform to the mitigation measures resulting from these studies. Utilities and Service Systems - Impacts less than those previously analyzed. The proposed residential units will generate a lower need for utilities and service s y s t e m s t h a n development of a tourist commercial project on six acres of the site. 013 G:\WPDOCS\EJRAddKSLI 21 E. WPD 061 Cultural Resources - Mineral Resources - Not Population and Housing - Impacts no greater than applicable. Impacts less than those those previously previously analyzed. analyzed. The site has The change in land use b e e n previously designation will reduce disturbed, and is not the potential number of expected to contain jobs to be generated by culturally significant the project overall, and resources. Should will not create a need for r e s o u r c e s b e additional housing. encountered during site grading and excavation, the project proponent shall cease all work on the site until an archaeological monitor has been retained. 014 069 G:\WPDOCS\EfRAdd KSL121 E.WPD Geology and Soils - Impacts no greater than those previously analyzed. The project proponent shall be required to implement the Uniform Building Code for Zone III groundshaking zones, and shall be required to prepare site -specific soils analysis prior to issuance of building permits. Noise - Impacts have changed from those previously analyzed. A noise impact analysis was prepared for the Revised Project. The noise analysis identified potential impacts to homes adjacent to both Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive. In order to mitigate this impact, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. 1. A 6 foot wall above a four foot berm shall be erected on both the Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 frontages of the Revised Project. 2. Interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. 3.AlI construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. 4. Construction staging areas shall be located as far from e x i s t i n g residential development as possible. 015 G:\WPDOCS\EIRAdd KSL121 E.WPD 063 The City finds that consideration of the Revised Project does not call for the preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public Resources Code Section 21166, in that the Revised Project does not involve: substantial changes to the project analyzed in the EIR which would involve new significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; 2. substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the EIR substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; or 3. new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the EIR substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. 016 G:\WPDOCS\EIRAddKSL121 E. WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CHANGE IN LAND DESIGNATION FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR SIX ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND AVENUE 50 CASE NO.: GPA 2001-078 APPLICANT: KSL DEVELOPMENT CORP. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 81:h and 22nd day of May, 2001, hold duly noticed Public Hearings for KSL Development Corp. for review of a General Plan Amendment to assign a land use designation of Low Density Residential to six acres located within a 17.82 acre parcel at the southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50, and more specifically described as follows: APIV's: 658-190-004, 773-020-033, 773-020-021, 773-020-034 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said General Plan Amendment: 1 . Internal General Plan Consistency. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Map would change the designation on six acres of land from Tourist Commercial to Low Density Residential. The proposed amendment is surrounded by approximately 11 acres designated as Low Density Residential in the General Plan. The proposed amendment maintains consistency within the other General Plan elements, insofar as the Low Density Residential land use designation is the most prevalent designation in the General Plan. 2. Public Welfare. The proposed project requires the extension of all public services to the site as part of project development. In addition, conditions of approval and environmental mitigation measures have been included for this project which address safety and welfare issues, including noise, traffic: and water quality. 3. General Plan Compatibility. The proposed General Plan amendment will be compatible with the surrounding designations in the project area, insofar as the Low Density Residential designation is prevalent within Specific Plan 121-EI, and this project will continue this trend of development. 017 G:\WPDOCS\PC ResoKSL-GPA078. W PD Planning Commission Resolution 2001- General Plan Amendment 2001-078 KSL Development Corp. May 22, 2001 4. Property Suitability. The property is well suited to residential development, being primarily flat, and having adequate access to major roadways. 5. Change in Circumstances. The continued development of the City requires residential dwelling units for new residents, in order to meet the goals of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Addendum to EIR #41 assessed the environmental concerns of the General Plan Amendment; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 2001-078 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22nd day of May, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 018 G:\WPDOCS\PCP.eso KS L-G PA078.WPD i. 06 t, ', GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-078 APPROVED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE 50th - I AVENUE 3 � 0 x z W N 41 . G1TC PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN/LAND USE 50th - I AVENUE o ■ , Q oa 1 N� 1 o N G 019 W 067 _ P PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON A 17.82 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND AVENUE 50. CASE NO.: ZC 2000-101 APPLICANT: KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8th and 22nd day of May, 2001, hold duly noticed Public Hearings for KSL Development Corporation for review of a Zone Change to change the zoning designation on a 17.82 acre parcel at the southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50, more particularly described as: APIV's: 658-190-004, 773-020-033, 773-020-021, 773-020-034 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Zone Change: Consistency with General Plan. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Map would change the designation from Tourist Commercial to Low Density Residential. The proposed amendment is an existing land use designation in the General Plan. The proposed amendment maintains consistency within the other General Plan elements, insofar as the Low Density Residential land use designation is the most prevalent designation in the General Plan. The proposed zone change will maintain the consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance required by law. 2. Public: Welfare. The proposed project requires the extension of all public services to the site as part of project development. In addition, conditions of approval and environmental mitigation measures have been included for this project which address safety and welfare issues, including noise, traffic and water quality. 3. General Plan Compatibility. The proposed General Plan amendment will be compatible with the surrounding designations in the project area, insofar as the Low Density Residential designation is prevalent within Specific Plan 121-E., and this project will continue this trend of development. 020 G:\WPDOCS\PCReso KSLZC101 .wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Change of Zone 2001-101 KSL Development Corp. May 22, 2001 4. Property Suitability. The property is well suited to residential development, being primarily flat, and having adequate access to major roadways. 5. Change in Circumstances. The continued development of the City requires residential dwelling units for new residents, in order to meet the goals of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That iit does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Addendum to EIR #41 assessed the environmental concerns of the Change of Zone; and, 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of ZC 2001-101 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as contained in the attached Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22nd day of May, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California - 021. G:\WPDOCS\PCResoKSLZC 101.wpd ,,, � 0 6 it ZONE CHANGE 2001-101 APPROVED ZONING j 501h ' I A WIG1TC I PROPOSED ZONING 501h - I AVENUE { L,DR Ln 1 G a Z � G W 1) u22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E (AMENDMENT NO. 5) FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL, GOLF COURSE, AND TOURIST COMMERCIAL USES ON 622 ACRES, KNOWN AS THE LA QUINTA RESORT AND CLUB CASE NO. SP 121-E, AMENDMENT NO. 5 APPLICANT: KSL DEVELOPMENT CORP. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 81h day of May, 2001 and 22"' day of May, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider Specific Plan 121-E, Amendment No. 5, to allow a mixed use development including residential, golf course and tourist commercial uses on 622 acres, generally bounded by the Santa Rosa mountains on the west, Calle Tampico on the south, Coachella Drive on the north and Desert Club (extended) on the east; and WHEREAS, said Specific Plan has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #41 was prepared for Specific Plan 121-E and found that although the proposed project will have environmental impacts, all impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of Specific Plan 121-E, Amendment No. 5: 1. That the proposed Specific Plan 121-E, Amendment No. 5 is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the proposed Low Density Residential land use designation exists in the General Plan. 2. This Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the single family residential development will occur within an existing planned community and will be integrated into that community. 3. That Specific Plan 121-E, Amendment No. 5 is compatible with the existing and anticipated area development in that the project does not increase the total number of units originally intended for development within the area. 023 G:\WPD0CS\PCResoKSLSP121-E#5.WPD n.�i Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 121-E, Amendment #5 KSL Development Corp. May 22, 2001 4. That the project will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure; public health and safety. 5. That the Specific Plan 121-E, Amendment No. 5 is consistent with the current Specific Plan approval and amendment process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby require compliance with the conditions of approval for the proposed Specific Plan; 3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Addendum to EIR #41 assessed the environmental concerns of this Specific Plan; and, 4. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Specific Plan 121-E, Amendment #5 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 22"dday of May, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director U24 City of La Quinta, California sly®Ill�� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E, AMENDMENT #5 - KSL LAND DEVELOPMENT MAY 22, 2001 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Specific Plan. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. 3. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 4. Applicant shall provide an easement of sufficient width to allow the construction of a retaining wall to be extended from the applicant's retaining wall adjacent to Eisenhower Drive. 5. Right of way dedications required of this development include: G:\WPDOCS\PCRes0KSLSP121 ECOA.WPD 025 073 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E, AMENDMENT #5 - KSL LAND DEVELOPMENT MAY 8, 2001 A. PUBLIC STREETS 1. Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) - 50-foot half of the 100-foot right of way. 2. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) - 50-foot half of the 100-foot right of way, measured from the existing improvement construction centerline. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1. Residential (Street Lots A-F): 31-foot minimum width with roll - type curb (providing minimum travel width of 28-feet, measured gutter flow -line to gutter flow -line). Right of way may be reduced to 29-feet with vertical curbs. On -street parking is prohibited provided and the applicant must make provision for ongoing enforcement of the restriction. 2. Private Gated Entry: 82-feet or as required to provide adequate egress and turn -around for non -admitted visitors, as approved by the City Engineer. 3. Emergency Access (Lot G): 25-foot. C. CULS DE SAC 1. Public or Private: Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 39-foot radius for vertical curbs and 41-foot radius for rolled curbs to provide travel radius of 38-feet measured gutter flow -line to gutter flow -line, or larger. 6. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 7. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for the existing bus turnout on Avenue 50. 8. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 026 G:\WPDOCS\PCFiesoKSLSP121 ECOA.WPD " CI PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E, AMENDMENT #5 - KSL LAND DEVELOPMENT MAY 8, 2001 The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. Projects disturbing 5 or more acres, or smaller projects which are part of a larger project disturbing 5 or more acres require a project -specific NPDES permit. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CWO.CB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent (N01) prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) is available for inspection at the project site. 9. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the express concurrence of IID. 10. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): A. Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial): 20-feet. B. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial): 20-feet. The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 1 1 . The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. LANDSCAPING 12. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 13. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the n �j►r G:\WPDOCS\PCFiesoKSLSP121 ECOA.WPD 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E, AMENDMENT #5 - KSL LAND DEVELOPMENT MAY 8, 2001 Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 14. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS Prior to issuance of a grading permit or 30 days after City Council approval, whichever occurs first, the Specific Plan shall be modified as follows: 15. The words "resort residential" shall be deleted from the first paragraph of page 2.16 of the Specific Plan. 16. Common area pool and clubhouse facility shall be listed separately in Table 2, page 2.17 of the Specific Plan. 17. The Residential Development Standards table on page 3.10 shall be amended to read Min. Lot Size: 6,000 s.f. 18. The Specific Plan shall be amended to include clubhouse buildings, subject to Site Development Permit approval, in the permitted use section of Planning Area II. 19. No signage is included in this Specific Plan approval. The applicant shall prepare a master sign program for review and approval by the Planning Commission. 20. The landscaping palette (Table 8, page 2.59) shall be amended to include all plants listed in the "Suggested Plant Material Palette -- La Quinta Resort and Club/Esperanza Village." 21. All mitigation measures in Addendum to EIR #41 shall be incorporated into the Specific Plan by this reference. 22. Prior to any earthmoving activities, the permanent employee parking facilities located at Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas shall have been completed to the satisfaction of the City, shall be fully accessible to La Quinta Resort and Club employees, and shall have shuttle service established. 028 G:\WPDOCS\PCRaS0KSLSP121 ECOA.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF 65 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITHIN THE LA QUINTA RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN, #121-E, AMENDMENT #5 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-703 APPLICANT: KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8th and 22nd day of May, 2001, hold duly noticed Public Hearings for KSL Development Corporation to allow the construction of 65 single family homes on 17.82 acres within the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan area, more particularly described as: APN's 658-190-004, 773-020-033, 770-020-021, 773-020-034 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee for the City of La Quinta did, on the 2nd day of May, 2001 recommend approval of the proposed project, by adoption of Minute Motion 2001-023, subject to conditions of approval; WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies and programs relating to the Low Density Residential land) use designation, and supports the development of a mix of residential land uses within an established Specific Plan. 2. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan, as conditioned, which establishes development standards for the project. The project, as conditioned meets the City's standards for height, landscaping and land use. 3. The proposed Site Development Permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with surrounding development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements, as conditioned. - 029 G:\WPDOCS\PCResoSDP703. WPD 077 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Site Development Permit 703 May 22, 2001 4. The proposed Site Development Permit, as conditioned, complies with the architectural design standards for the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan (#121-E, Amendment #5), and implements the development standards and design guidelines included in that document. 5. The proposed Site Development Permit, as conditioned, is consistent with the landscaping standards and palette in the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2001-703, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto; and 3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Addendum to EIR #41 assessed the environmental concerns of this Specific Plan. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22nd day of May, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERIMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G:\WPD0CS\PCResoSDP703.WPD 030 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-703 MAY 22, 2001 1 5 The final landscaping plan shall include the following plant sizes: Interior Street Trees Accent Trees Unit Screen Trees Perimeter/Entry Shrubs Groundcover Desertscape Ocotillo Vines 24" box minimum 24" box minimum 24;' box minimum 25' trunk height minimum 5 gal. Minimum 1 gal. Minimum 5 gal. Minimum 6' minimum 5 gal. Minimum The perimeter wall shall be located a minimum of 20 feet from the edge of the public right-of-way. 3. The perimeter wall shall be no more than 6 feet in height, finished with a stucco finish, and articulated with pilasters at a minimum of 60 foot intervals. 4. All changes to the Specific Plan which are also included in the Site Development Permit shall be made to the latter to ensure consistency. The project proponent shall submit amended documents within 30 days of City Council approval or, issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, of the Specific Plan. 5. The landscaping plan shall include all frontages on City streets, and shall be installled with the perimeter wall, as part of the first phase of construction on the project site. 6. The home to be located on lot #16 shall be limited to one story, 22 feet in height. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 7. Grading and drainage plans shall be submitted to the District for review prior to the issuance of grading permits. 8. The project proponent shall construct suitable facilities to limit access to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. 031. G:\WPD 0 C S\PC ResoKS Lsdp 703COA. wpd -}, 079 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-703 MAY 22, 2001 9. The project proponent shall obtain an encroachment permit from the District prior to any construction within the right of way of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. 10. The proposed project shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 55 and 82 for sanitation service. 1 1 . Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for review for the purpose of ensuring efficient water management. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 12. Approved standard fire hydrants, located at each intersection and spaced 330 feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 gpm, for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi. 13. Blue clot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 14. Gate entrances shall be at least two feet wider than the width of the travel lanes serving that gate. Any gate providing access from a road to a driveway shall be located at least 35 feet setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Where a one- way road with a single traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 40- foot turning radius shall be used. 15. Gates shall be equipped with a rapid entry system (KNOX). Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Gate pins shall be rated with a shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system. 16. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. 17. Prior to any earthmoving activities, the permanent employee parking facilities located at Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas shall have been completed to the: satisfaction of the City, shall be fully accessible to La Quinta Resort and Club employees, and shall have shuttle service established. G:\WPDOCS\PC:ResoKSLsdp7O3COA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A SUBDIVISION OF 17.82 ACRES INTO 65 PARCELS AND A NUMBER OF LETTERED LOTS. CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 APPLICANT: KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8th and 22nd day of May, 2001, hold duly noticed Public Hearings for KSL Development Corporation, in order to subdivide a 17.82 acre parcel into 65 numbered lots and a number of lettered lots, generally located at the southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50, more particularly described as: APIV's: 658-190-004, 773-020-033, 773-020-021, 773-020-034 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Tentative Tract Map 30125: Finding Nurrrber 1 - Consistency with General Plan A. The property is designated Low Density Residential. The Land Use Element of the General Plan encourages differing residential developments throughout the City. The project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) insofar as Low Density Residential development fits the character of the City's residential community. Finding Number 2 - Consistency with City Zoning Ordinance: A. The proposed development is consistent with the land uses specified in the Zoning Ordinance, as conditioned. Modifications to the City's standards, which are included in Specific Plan 121-E, Amendment #5, are justified. Finding Nurnber 3 - Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act: A. Tentative Tract Map 30125 is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Public Resources Code Section 65457(a). An Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #41 has been prepared. 03 3 G:\W PDOCS\PCResoKSLTT30125. WPD 081 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TTM 30125 - KSL Development Corp. May 22, 2001 Finding Number 4 - Site Design: A. The proposed design of the subdivision conforms with the development standards found in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as modified in the Specific Plan. B. The site is physically suitable for the proposed land division, as the area is flat and without physical constraints, and the Tentative Tract Map is consistent with other parcels in the La Quinta Resort project. Finding Number 5 - Site Improvements: A. Infrastructure improvements such as gas, electric, sewer and water will service the site in underground facilities as required. No adverse impacts have been identified based on letters of response from affected public agencies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report #41 assessed the environmental concerns of this Tentative Tract Map; and, 4. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 30125 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22nd day of May, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: G:\W PDOCS\PCResoKSLTT30125. W PD 034 082 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TTM 30125 - KSL Development Corp. May 22, 2001 STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HEWAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G:\WPD0CS\PCResoKSLTT30125.WPD 035 083 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MAY 22, 2001 GENERAL 1 . The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative rnap or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This tentative map and any final maps thereunder shall comply with the requirements and standards of § §66410 through 66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC). 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. Projects disturbing 5 or more acres, or smaller projects which are part of a larger project disturbing 5 or more acres require a project -specific NPDES permit. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent (NOI) prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) is available; for inspection at the project site. 036 G:\WPDOCS\PC R eSOKS LTT30125.WPD 084 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TTM 30125 - KSL Development Corp. May 22, 2001 4. Final maps under this tentative map shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of final map approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 7. Applicant shall provide an easement of sufficient width to allow the construction of a retaining wall to be extended from the applicant's retaining wall adjacent to Eisenhower Drive. 8. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1 . Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) - 50-foot half of the 100-foot right of way. 2. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) - 50-foot half of the 100-foot right of way, measured from the existing improvement construction centerline. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1. Residential (Street Lots A-F): 31-foot minimum width with roll - type curb (providing minimum travel width of 28-feet, measured gutter flow -line to gutter flow -line). Right of way may be reduced to 29-feet with vertical curbs. On -street parking is prohibited provided and the applicant must make provision for ongoing enforcement of the restriction. 2. Private Gated Entry: 82-feet or as required to provide adequate egress and turn -around for non -admitted visitors, as approved by the City Engineer. 037 3. Emergency Access (Lot G): 25-foot. G:\WPDOCS\PC ResoKSLTT30125.WPD "1 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TTM 30125 - KSL Development Corp. May 22, 2001 C. CULS DE SAC 1. Public or Private: Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 39-foot radius for vertical curbs and 41-foot radius for rolled curbs to provide travel radius of 38-feet measured gutter flow -line to gutter flow -line, or larger. 9. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 10. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for the existing bus turnout on Avenue 50. 11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 12. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of way within 60 days of written request by the City. 13. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the express concurrence of IID. 14. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): 15 A. Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial): 20-feet. B. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial): 20-feet. The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall -dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. G:\WPDOCS\PCFtesa KS LTT30125. W PD Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TTM 30125 - K8L Development Corp. May 22, 2001 16. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on the approved tentative map. 17. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 18. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties ovvned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners. 19. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval of this tentative map by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAPIS) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 20. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. If the: map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map. 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. 21. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Gradiing," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. 039 G:\WPDOCS\PC FiesoKSLTT30125.WPD 087 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TTM 30125 - K8L Development Corp. May 22, 2001 Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 22. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes, for elements of construction. For a fee established by City Resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 23. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant :shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 24. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other develiopment or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 25. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map 0/4 0 G:\WPDOCS\PCResoKSLTT30125.WPD `� 8 S Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TTM 30125 - K..SL Development Corp. May 22, 2001 or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 26. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall] be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendiized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 27. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase: shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 28. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 29. Provide 2-foot wide flat areas between Lots 1-5 and 55-61 and the water features adjacent to said lots for pedestrian traffic. The pedestrian walking area shou!Id be adjacent to the lot lines. 30. Slopes adjacent to the golf course water features shall not exceed 3:1 . G:\W PDOCS\PCResoKSLTT30125. W PD 041. 089 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TTM 30125 - KSL Development Corp. May 22, 2001 31. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, applicant shall submit written verification of the Water Quality Control Board's acceptance of applicant's filing of the Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with State and Federal NPDES regulations. 32. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendatiions of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 33. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 34. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 35. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 36. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 37. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. 38. Storrnwater shall normally be retained in the golf course water features. G:\WPDOCS\PCFteso KSLTT301 2 5.WPD 04�y11 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TTM 30125 - KSL Development Corp. May 22, 2001 39. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 40. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 41. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in an approved method. 42. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City - or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. UTILITIES 43. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 44. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS 45. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development arid all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 043 G:\WPDOCS\PCFIeso KS LTT30125.WPD `� 1 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TTM 30125 - KSL Development Corp. May 22, 2001 46. Provide safety railing along the top of the retaining wall adjacent to Lot 53. Safety, railing shall be capable of providing for the safety of pedestrians and occupants of golf carts. 47. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform vvith the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1. Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial)- Applicant shall comply with the approved Condition of Approval, No. 10, Tentative Parcel Map 28334, which is worded as follows: "As a condition of any final map or other land action allowing development of any portion of this property, the following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) - 76' between curb faces with a 12' raised median along the full frontage of this parcel map." Condition to be amended to read: Applicant shall construct half street improvement in compliance with the General Plan along the full frontage of Eisenhower, comprising that portion of Tentative Parcel Map 28334 and Tentative Tract Map 30125, to a point: 60- feet north of the southwest property corner of Tract 28334, Parcel 3. Applicant shall construct six foot meandering sidewalk and 12- foot raised center median. Applicant will be reimbursed for the cost of the median construction from the Transportation DIF lin an amount not to exceed the budget allowance for this median construction. Applicant shall enter a secured agreement for the cost of the: half street improvement from the point 60-feet north of the southwest property corner of Tract 28334, Parcel 3, to the north terminus of the future Eisenhower Drive bridge improvement. 2. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) - Construct median modification to allow left turn from Ave. 50. Construct 8-foot meandering sidewalk from eastern end of bus shelter to the eastern property boundary. G:\WPDO CS\PCResoKSLTT301 2 5.WPD 044 0,92 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TTM 30125 - KSL Development Corp. May 22, 2001 B. PRIVATE STREETS 1. Residential (Lots A-F): 28-foot travel width, minimum, measured gutter flow -line to gutter flow -line. On -street parking shall be prohibited and applicant will provide for perpetual enforcement of the restriction by the homeowner's association. 2. Emergency Access (Lot G): Minimum 20-foot travel width, measured gutter flow -line to gutter flow -line. C. CULS DE SAC 1. Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 38-foot curb radius, measured gutter flow -line to gutter fllow- line. 48. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 49 The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 50. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 51. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 52. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be vertical (1 /8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. G:\WPDO CS\PCnesoKSLTT30125. W PD 045 OJ3 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TTM 30125 - K8L Development Corp. May 22, 2001 53. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent: (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 54. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 55. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 56. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 046 G:\WPDOCS\PC FIesoKSLTT30125.WPD 0 " Z2 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TTM 30125 - KSL Development Corp. May 22, 2001 57. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. PUBLIC SERVICES 58. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY A:)SURANCE 59. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 60. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 61. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 62. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 63. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND (DEPOSITS 64. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking, and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the 04 applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 0 9 _� Planning Commission Resolution 2001- TTM 30125 - KSL Development Corp. May 22, 2001 65. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property or lots subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of the reapportionment. 66. Prior to any earthmoving activities, the permanent employee parking facilities located at Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas shall have been completed to the satisfaction of the City, shall be fully accessible to La Quinta Resort and Club employees, and shall have shuttle service established. 048 ()9F� ATTACHMENT #1 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 3. There being no questions of the applicant, nor any other public comment, ChairmanRobbins-ebsed-the-pnbti"c—par—ticlppaation ortion e eanng and asked if there was any Commission cussion. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved d seconded by Commissioner Abels/Tyler to adopt Pla ing Commission Resolution 2001-064 recommending appr al of Tentative Tract Map 30136, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. i A , Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and S: None. ABSENT: None. E. Site Development Permi 200 -693; a request of JR Properties for The 99G Stores, for review of architectural and landscaping plans for a shopping center to includ,94a 23,00 square foot commercial store located at northwest corner of/Jefferson Street and Highway 1 1 1. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report/ Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated the applicant had request a continuance to May 22, 2001. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to continue Site Development Permit 2001-696, to May 22, 2001. Unanimously approved. Addendum to Environmental Assessment #41 General Plan Amendment 2001-078 Zone Change 2001-101 Specific Plan 121-E Amendment #5 Site Development Permit 2001-703 and Tentative Tract Map 30125,- a request of KSL Land Development for, 1) certification of an Addendum to an Environmental Impact Report; 2) a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change to change lands currently designated as Tourist Commercial to Low Density Residential; 3) a Specific Plan Amendment establishing development standards and design guidelines for the construction of 65 single family homes, a clubhouse, and amendment of the landscaping plant palette; and 4) development plans for the model homes and subdivision of 17.82 acres into 65 single family and miscellaneous lots to be located on the southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked if there was any public comment. G:\WPD0CS\PC5-8-01.Wpd 14 049 09? Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 2. Mr. David Erwin, representing the La Quinta Country Club, stated he has read the staff report and it appears that most of his concerns are addressed. Their concerns are that the minimum standards for lot size are met. He sees no reason to reduce the lot size. He also requests that they ensure that all traffic concerns are addressed and the walls along Avenue 50 be compatible with the adjacent wall that it is in effect extending. He spoke with Mr. Hobbs, the developer of the houses, and it is his understanding that the size of the houses will be a minimum of 2,500 square feet, which is relatively compatible with the existing homes and he would like to have this included in the conditions. 3. Commissioner Butler asked for clarification on a question raised by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee in regard to the wall. Staff stated they were referencing a power wall used for interior courtyards. 4. Commissioner Tyler questioned the ten foot wall between the homes. 5. Planning Manager Christine di lorio informed the Commission that a request had been received to continue this item to May 22, 2001, and these questions could be addressed at that time. 6. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue the applications to May 22, 2001, as requested by the applicant. 2784& 27952 28343 28640 28912 29043 29283, and 294b /; a request'bf Watson and Watson Engineering and Forrest Haag, ASLA, Incorporat for 1) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmenta mpact; 2) General Plan Amendment to modify Chapter 7, Policy 7-1.4.3 o the Infrastructure and Public Services Element to allow an exemption to t undergrouding of utility lines that are attached to joint -use 92 KV tran mission lines; 3) Amendment #4 to Specific Plan 84-004 to establish ne guidelines and standards for overhead utility lines, undergounding, an -ding five acres to the 718 acre master planned community of 1,30 esidential units oriented around two 18- hole golf courses; 4) a request to mend the Conditions of Approval for Parcel Maps and Tract Maps to elimi a the undergrounding of overhead 050 G:\WPDOCS\PC5-S-01 .wpd 15 - U9 ATTACHMENT #2 PROJECT SITE . . W Ol c x z W N m .w W m r— N Nx 3 MILES i AVENUE 48th I AVENUE Wm t I V) W NE 50th - AVENUE V' Z O W O Ln acc Z G � i 52th AVENUE CASE MAP CASE Na 54th AVENUE NORTH SCALE: ATTACHMENT #5 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes May 2, 2001 2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff to identify the location of the project. Planning Manager Christie di lorio stated it was next to the mobile home park and across from the High School. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what zoning was required for a church. Staff stated it could go anywhere with a conditional use permit. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he concurred with staff's recommendation. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated they have a long way to go architecturally before the building elevations could be approved. The applicant needs to be more involved with the community around where the building will be built. He recognizes there may be financial constraints, but they should obtain assistance from a professional architect to add detail to the building as this building is within the public eye. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he concurred. If they do not want any windows, then some type of architectural style should be added to the street frontage. 5. Committee Members Cunningham stated this is not the typical architectural style that has been approved in La Quinta. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2001-022 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-702, subject to the conditions as amended: a. Condition #1: replace the main gable roof with a hip roof. b. Condition #6: 1.5 inch caliper size tree. Unanimously approved. D. Specific Plan 121-E Amendment #4 and Site Development Permit 2001- 703; a request of R. C. Hobbs Company/KSL Company for review of landscaping and architectural plans each with three facades, including perimeter landscaping for a 17.82 acre site. 1. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what the wall would consist of. Mr. Hobbs, the applicant, stated it would be stuccoed. Commiittee Member Bobbitt stated his concern was that a "power wall", filled 052 G:\WPDOCS\ALRC5-2-0l.wpd 3 i 01 ) Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes May 2, 2001 with foam, would not allow vines to be attached. Mr. Forrest Haag, landscape architect for the project, stated they used the trellis at the La Quinta Resort instead of the conventional use of screws. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated that foam walls were not allowed in Palm Desert. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt elaborated on the problems they have with the "power wall" at PGA West. Mr. Hobbs noted they were not on a zero lot, but had five foot setbacks which gave them more room for landscaping. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked the height of the tower element. Staff stated 22 feet as noted on the site plan. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he liked the project. 6. Committee Member Cunningham stated he like the project. 7. Planning Manager Christine di lorio asked what the rear elevation would look like as it will be seen from the street. Committee Member Cunningham stated there was enough articulation that it did not matter. 8. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his concern about the planting of trees when there is not enough room for tree growth and how they become a maintenance issue. 9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2001-022 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-703, subject to the conditions. Unanimously approved. E. Site Development Permit 2001-693; a request of JR Properties for The 99G Stores for review of landscaping and architectural plans for a shopping center including a 23,000 square foot store. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Mr. Jeff Rothbard, representing JR Properties, stated they agreed with Conditions #1-5. On Condition #6 they would like to request a reduction from eight feet to six feet on the split block. On G:AWPDOCSVALRC5-2-Ol.wpd 4 / � ■ [2 in / kill 100'07'494 65487' 628 82' Z _on_! 9 Lfi11, AISLES�iY� IIIIII a Im I L n' a ZZ �Ay'ni no_ ; ny x-av�a G wn m N - D 30 � - �a SDP = D _ r Z 30 0 Z N r � r F N m 143 Y m �loo' s — n � R r o � 2 wr a° C m as a Z cR ses n Op 3 � pFFf £FF g e g g g AT. 221 9 n I N I = \ \ § \ \�40 ) § \ 4 n 0 ; z ! �.)>Im \ r ;\\� \ / @$ >� 9 0 z Ln 1� T (� CM cnf�z°C=N P N -oO > N70 rr-- D .Z § §2</ co / - CD N00"6"49"W 651.87' � 628 8 I �o 1l i 11m'nm CA I 1 L1 I,I � 4I fl v6A 9NooaY<r'w ADD-$jDDDDD-� R 1 w� z6 A! c ii � ti So C� r 11 1 ,. V om DPI �n�l O �I l♦ i3 r I I A D -�D � r l l �100 _ �I � In �Dr�I--1 '� �D�i'Ii t ti c4 Z l z .O�� ioi - ° � 4 1 I 3: �i ass � _' AW S zv°aq� -zs Rii sf�ago .�=om Pnz� ;.tea m oK ' zrs r — 1 ~�I 0 M,,- 12 s€ �,c sag. r €R4hdikI [ a •m0 0 q y w.. 0 N00'07'49'W 65467' _ _ it � 628.87 rl �I I RP I I I U�III�U1 . 2 II Shoo m'arw £ _ y D �g7 H'.T .. �^ _ —I I m 11 9 9' S,nLLS 30 FFI 96 S.FS YP � � [1 50' II � � I m e] k rI U M 143 on � e L D II i �m I I ri TO0-1ill'w 15eio I ISO-J � I I I� ➢�y � �� � O 1 I I 9x, T �1 .l� �I lII anno _Z0 L9tl o f`1 W O R n -- O 39 ° - £ 02 0 a € € g i B 6 B it it it € a h 3 3 _ n ®�$ S `m "�= g C a�gnt m ' g= A T.F ;g "s s g g % ggmng Zo 1102A qj� a �� a� �R§s' ga 4 S Bed F 8 "oS " C Z H n �y —4 00� in C 3 WIP, i„m= )2. £@. m of X a �A ti N0007'49"W — F-- 628.87 • ♦ r z � >����'_fi7i���'�a�UulTf�"1� _ m V C Z I ego Wl-�11 +4 Y 26' S STALL S TYP / � I'I U I CT -III 7 > >m D I�� < I � � ����I �Sv � UrrllYlllY�ll M 654.87 � I I € I O t o Y I \ �h I O I 1 \a ? R' \128€ 4 zF§xF6.i l[�c R .ee�tio � � � [[,, � qws? �ag;, �q '.q ga Go-� soss Y➢� m€` ii1 pp IIOil, °zS I1 III\_s-° 1vi ii L o < PreAe'[ xaG °PR:E kMc iU-N Fgly£B a" B - ?cx A$p s�4F8s m m o < - 5 o c JE fEaS IJ Si K � o 0 -9 a0H �'����3 °2_ t�➢ 0 66om6 Sz -Av � � A ���L9Tkii� am) �gF E��Pl �R�3n. �1 72i�I N��S� 5 d'`� ARF Ga'Isz C e c 6 e z ra n sE �'o T BA 5P HN E. 4P�� �....5 ill I I I I II O G)0 ® iS�T �Fi pag o=g4E,C h��=A 0fRA vm �_ 2 g • O < �� gb �# q '" F�$$Q No T r iVJP > �fA >saA i:9 v� z aP a_a e" CDy 0 R#m q-5 ym e u y F✓ m.m m Q4 a o N W m C HMo � 2'€ve�m„Cnm �F; mm a �S €qa ���b I � � � pp e 2 GF,. 0- ox 4 ti v v m ..�� ao d z mm PH #C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MAY 22, 2001 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29858-2, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: RJT HOMES, LLC (CHAD MEYER) REQUEST: AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29858 (PHASE #2) RECONFIGURING SEVEN ACRES IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE TRACT INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER COMMON LOTS LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET SOUTH OF AVENUE 50 AND WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET WITHIN PALMILLA SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 2000-048) ENGINEER: M.D.S. CONSULTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA 2000-401) WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 21, 2000 (RESOLUTION 2000-150) FOR THE PALMILLA DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29858. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION. GENERAL PLAN/ZONING DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE); RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: PHASE #1 OF TRACT 29858 (PENDING DEVELOPMENT) SOUTH: CITRUS COUNTRY CLUB (RESIDENTIAL) StRpt PCTract 29858-2/Palmilla - 49 Greg ® 4/20/5/16 Nicole's Form Page 1 of 3 EAST: ACROSS JEFFERSON STREET, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN INDIO WEST: PHASE #1 OF TRACT 29858 (PENDING DEVELOPMENT) BACKGROUND: Specific Plan 2000-048 (City Council Resolution 2000-152) On November 21, 2000, the City Council adopted Palmilla Specific Plan, which provides design guidelines and development standards for the future development of 178 single family houses utilizing detached or attached construction methods on 73 acres (Attachment 1 - Master Site Plan). The project is designed around a series of water and open space elements. Tentative Tract Map 29585 City Council Resolution 2000-153 approved a mix of 90 single family attached residences and 72 detached single family homes on lots ranging from 8,208 square feet to 21,136 square feet for the site (Attachment 2). The average lot size for the attached product is 10,446 square feet and 15,534 square feet for the detached product. The attached product is located on the eastern half of the property, closest to Jefferson Street. Many of the residential units are located on common area lakes, which total 111 .1 acres of the project site. Since approval by the City Council on November 21, 2000, the developer has reduced the number of residential lots to 159 from 162. Tract 29858-1, consisting of 141 single family lots, is pending recordation. A clearing and grubbing permit was issued by the City to the developer in April pursuant to the requirements of City Council Resolution 2000-150 (EA). Site Development Permit 2001-694 On March 27, 2001, the Planning Commission, on a 5-0 vote, adopted Minute Motion 2001-008 approving six prototype housing units in the Palmilla development ranging from 2,894 square feet to over 4,000 square feet. REQUEST: This proposed Amendment to the tentative tract map will be proposed as Phase II of the entire subdivision map. The proposed reconfiguration of the southeast corner of tract consists of (1) 18 single family residential lots ranging in size from 7,877 to over 10,880 square feet and other miscellaneous common lots, (2) single family lots measuring 70' in width by 120' in depth, and (3) a 1 .6 acre retention basin (Lot "D") 002 StRpt PCTract 29858-2/Palmilla - 49 Greg ® 4/20/5/16 Nicole's Form J Page 2 of 3 along Jefferson Street. The new tract design reduces the number of development and flag lots, cul-de-sac streets, and reconfigures rear yard common open space areas. Public Notice Tentative Tract Map 29858-2 (Amendment #1) was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 9, 2001. All affected property owners within 500-feet were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by Title 13 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the La Quinta Municipal Code and Charter. To date, no written comments have been received by the Community Development Department. Aciency Comments The applicant's request was sent to responsible agencies, and any pertinent comments received have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings needed to approve this request can be made, and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , approving Tentative Tract Map 29858-2 (Amendment #1), subject to the attached findings and conditions. Attachments: 1 . Specific Plan 2000-048 2. TTM 29858-2 3. Large Map (Commission only) Submitted by: OL�,, k,� Christine di lorio Planning Manager 003 `s StRpt PCTract 29858-2/Palmilla - 49 Greg 0 4/20/5/16 Nicole's Form V v Page3 of 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29858-2 RECONFIGURING SEVEN ACRES IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE TRACT INTO 18 RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER COMMON LOTS CASE NO.: TTM 29858-2, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: RJT HOMES, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22"d day of May, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for RJT Homes for review of a Tentative Tract Map Amendment (Phase 2) reconfiguring seven acres into 18 residential and common lots located approximately 800 feet south of Avenue 50 and west of Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: APN: 772-050-007 and 772-050-008 (Portions) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 2155 day of November, 2000, adopt Resolution 2000-153 approving TTM 29858 which allowed 162 residential lots on 73 acres located at the southwest corner of 50th Avenue and Jefferson Street; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 261h of September, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for Tentative Tract Map 29858, and recommended approval under Resolutions 2000-072 and 2000- 076; and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 2000-401) was certified by the City Council on November 21, 2000 (Resolution 2000-150) for the Palmilla development, including Tentative Tract Map 29858. No changed circumstances or conditions and no new information has been provided that would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings for recommending of approval for said Tentative Tract Map 29858 (Amendment #1) as required by Section 13.12.130 of the Subdivision Ordinance: The Tentative Tract Map Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and in that: the number of residential lots in Tract 29858 has been reduced thereby lowering the density from 2.43 dwelling units per acre to 2.17 dwelling units per acre. 2. The Tentative Tract Map Amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as it has been designed to be compatible with surrounding Qyj A:AReso PC RJT29858Rev.wpd Planing Commission Resolution No. 2001- Tentative Tract Map 29858-2, Amendment #1 RJT Homes, LLC May 22, 2001 Page 2 developments and other portions of Tract 29858, and conform with the City's standards and requirements, as conditioned. 3. The Tentative Tract Map Amendment is compatible with the City's Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plan 2000-048 in that lot configuration sizes are in compliance with the Code requirements. 4. Development of the Tentative Tract Map Amendment is compatible with the parcels on which it is proposed, and surrounding land uses as an extension of existing residential uses in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it. does hereby require compliance with those mitigation measures required in Environmental Assessment 2000-401 (City Council Resolution 2000-150); and 3. That it does recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 29858-2 (Amendment #1) for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on the 22"d day of May, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California 005 AAReso PC RJT29858Rev.wpd Planing Commission Resolution No. 2001-_ Tentative Tract Map 29858-2, Amendment #1 RJT Homes, LLC May 22, 2001 Page 3 ATTEST: JERRY HERN1AN, Community Development Director City of La Qtiinta, California D AAReso PC RJT29858Rev.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29858-2, AMENDMENT #1 - PALMILLA RJT HOMES, LLC MAY 22, 2001 GENERAL 1 . The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following Departments and public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. PROPERTY RIGHTS 3. Prior to approval of any future final tract map(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of future tentative map(s) or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed 007 AACond PC TT2:9858-2 Palmillia.wpd Greg 49 1 i 2 1) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 29858-2, Amendment #1 RJT Homes May 22, 2001 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. 4. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 5. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - no additional dedication required B. PRIVATE STREETS Residential: 31-foot width. On -street parking is prohibited and provisions shall be made for adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors. The CC&R's shall contain language requiring the Homeowner's Association to provide for ongoing enforcement of the restrictions. C. CULS DE SAC Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 39.5-foot radius, or larger. 6. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 7. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 8. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the express concurrence of IID. 9. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): 003 AACond PC TT29858-2 Palmillia.wpd Greg 49 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 29858-2, Amendment #1 RJT Homes May 22, 2001 A. Jefferson Street - 20-feet; The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 10. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 11. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on the approved Specific Plan. 12. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 13. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners. GRADING 14. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations)• If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the above conditions have been met. 15. Prior to issuance of any grading permit(s), the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. 009 AACond PC TT29858-2 Palmillia.wpd Greg 49 3 1 y Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 29858-2, Amendment #1 RJT Homes May 22, 2001 16. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 17. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. The limits given in this condition and the previous condition are not entitlements and more restrictive limits may be imposed in the map approval or plan checking process. If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 18. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 19. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 20. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 21. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. 01.0 A:\Cond PC TT29858-2 Palmillia.wpd Greg 49 4 123 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract MaIP 29858-2, Amendment N7 RJT Homes May 22, 2001 22. Stormvater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 23, Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 24. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design percolation rate shall not exceed two inches per hour. 25. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be six feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention. 26. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and Ieachfield approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leechfield shall be designed to contain surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape areal and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. 27. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department), retention basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s)• No fence or wall shall be constructed around basins unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 28. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City - or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. 29. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. A:\Cond PC TT29858-2 Palmillia.wpd Greg 49 5 011 12' Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 29858-2, Amendment #1 RJT Homes May 22. 2001 UTILITIES 30. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all aboveground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 31. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground, unless otherwise allowed by General Plan Amendment 2000-073. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 32. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 33. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - applicant shall pay cash fee to reimburse City for street improvements made to applicant's frontage through the City's Capital Improvement Program. Reimbursement amount shall cover all costs related to installing curb, gutter and outside 20 feet of roadway paving; the reimbursement amount shall be reduced by the percentage of non -City funds expended on the Jefferson Street Widening project. B. PRIVATE INTERIOR STREETS Two-way Traffic: construct 28-foot wide full -width improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter flowline) within the 31-foot right of way. All on -site streets shall be constructed with "wedge" type curb design as approved by the City Engineer. AACond PC TT29858-2 Palmillia.wpd Greg 49 6 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_ Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 29858-2, Amendment #1 RJT Homes May 22, 2001 Culs-de-sac: All cul-de-sac bulbs which contain raised landscaped islands shall be designated as "One -Way" and applicant shall construct minimum 20-foot wide full -width improvements (measured from gutter flowline to gutter flowline) within a minimum 23-foot right of way. Construct a "wedge" type curb design as approved by the City Engineer. All on -street parking is prohibited with the exception of guest parking by permit only and enforced by the Homeowners' Association and the applicant shall be required to provide for the perpetual enforcement of the restriction by the Homeowners' Association. C. CULS DE SAC - Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset), with 38-foot curb radius. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. 34. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 35. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 36. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 37. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 38. Public; streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. Onsite private streets shall have a wedge curb, the design of which shall be approved by the City Engineer. The lip of the wedge curb at the flowline shall be vertical (1 /8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. A:\Cond PC TT29858-2 Palmillia.wpd Greg 49 7 Oil 1Lr Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Mala 29858-2, Amendment #1 RJT Homes May 22, 2001 39. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as 'follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" 40. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 41. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the project or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. 42. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Jefferson Street (Secondary project entry) - This point of entry will be restricted to right -turn movements, and a left -turn into the project if the applicant desires to construct an appropriately designed opening in the median island. LANDSCAPING 43. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 44. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 014 A:\Cond PC TT29858-2 Palmillia.wpd Greg 49 8 127 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 29858-2, Amendment #1 RJT Homes May 22, 2001 The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 45. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 46. A 6-foot sidewalk shall be constructed along Jefferson Street. The sidewalk shall meander within the 32-foot right-of-way and 20' wide landscaped setback. PUBLIC SERVICES 47. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. MAINTENANCE 48. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 49. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. MISCELLANEOUS 50. The project proponent shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the Environmental Assessment 2000-401. 51. Lot 12 shall have a minimum frontage width of 35 feet to comply with Table 9- 2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 015 A:\Cond PC TT29858-2 Palmillia.wpd Greg 49 9 L el.. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 29858-2, Amendment #1 RJT Homes May 22, 2001 DOMESTIC WATER AND SANITARY SEWER 52. Landscaping, irrigation and grading plans shall be submitted to CVWD for review and approval. 53. All plans for domestic water connections to existing CVWD lines shall be submitted to the District for review and approval. FIRE DEPARTMENT 54. All water mains and fire hydrants required fire flows shall be constructed in accordance with the appropriate sections of CVWD Std. W-33, subject to the approval by the Riverside County Fire Department. 55. The minimum dimensions for fire apparatus access roads entering and exiting this project shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet in each direction and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13,-6". Parking is permitted on one side of roadways with a minimum width of 25 feet. Parking is permitted on both sides of roadways with a minimum width of 36 feet. 56. All interior fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum of 20 feet unobstructed width and an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13'-6". Any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of any building shall be located within 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. 57. Gate entrance/exit openings shall be not less than 15 feet in width. All gates shall be located at least 40'-0" from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Gates shall have either a secondary power supply or an approved manual means to release mechanical control of the gate in the event of loss of primary power. 58. The maximum dead-end street length is limited to 1,320 feet for areas not located in a designated high fire hazard zone. A secondary access roadway is typically provided when such a condition exists. 59. Cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum outside radius of 38 feet to face of curb with a minimum inside radius of 26 feet to islands or center landscape features. The entire: radius of 38 feet is required to properly turn fire department vehicles. Vehicle parking along the curb should be prohibited when the minimum radius is used. A:\Cond PC TT29858-2 Palmillia.wpd Greg 49 10 016 12Q ATTACHMENTS j��► E] : \} \ \ ( \ }\ { 5 ©! §! ! »dam : § \ Attachment 1 t � � \ \ { _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PH #D T,lu4t 4 laQuiam MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: MAY 22, 2001 SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-702, KINGDOM HALL OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES The applicant in the above referenced matter has requested a continuance to the Planning Commission meeting of July 10, 2001, in order to revise their plans to incorporate the changes recommended by the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee. Staff respectfully requests the Commission continue the item to the regularly scheduled meeting of July 10, 2001. L3Z John Hacker & Associates Consulting Civil Engineers 760-324-0216 Fax:760-321-5701 Email: jha@hackergroup.org 68-487 East Palm Canyon Drive Suite 44 Cathedral City, Ca 92234 May 15, 2001 City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Chirstine Diiorio Dear Ms. Diiorio: Please continue the planning community consideration of Site Development Permit SD 2001-702 until July 10. We will get together with design review to redesign the building. Respectfiilly, e John H. Hacker PH #E TO FROM DATE: `&hI' 44&Qulnfw MEMORANDUM HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MAY 22, 2001 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-418, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-077, ZONE CHANGE 2001-100 - NRI, LA QUINTA PARTNERSHIP The applicant in the above referenced matter has withdrawn their applications in order to reevaluate the zoning designation. They will submit new applications at a later date. Attachment: 1. Letter of withdrawal La Quinta LanJ Partners May 17, 2001 City of La Quinta Mr. Jerry Herman, Director Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: NRULQLP Land, LLC - Annexation to the City of La Quinta APN#'s: 767-200-002 through 76-200-011 Dear Jerry, ATTACHMENT #1 MAY 18 2MI Z On March 14 La Quinta Land Partners submitted to you applications for a general plan amendment, a zone change and an environmental information form for the above referenced property. We would like to request at this time withdrawal of the applications, as we will soon be re -submitting with a new zoning designation. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 391-5200. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Regards, Nancy Aarons President, La Quinta Land Partners CC: Grant Hornbeak Jack D. Franks P.Q. F>ox 1 54o La Quinta, CA 92253 760-391-5200 Fax 1-5 -521 1 1 J , BEST BEST SL KRIEGER LLP A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS LAWYERS ARTIUR L. LITTLEW ORTI' W ILLIAM R. DEWOLFE• RICXARD T. ANDERSON' J OHM D. WANLIN' JONN E. BROWN MICHAEL T. RIDDELL' MICHAEL GRANT' FRANCIS BAUM' GEORGE M. KEYS S' WILLI AM W. FLOYD, JR, GREGORY L. MAROKE KENDALL H. MAN VEY CLARK H. ALSO P A DAV 10 J. ERWIN' MICHAEL J. NOELSON' SCUD LAS S. PXI LLIPS' OR EGO BY K- WILKINSON GENE TANAKA VICTOR L. WOLF DANIEL E. OLINN ER HOWARD B. GOLDS STEPHEN P. DEITSCM JOHN R. POTTS CHAFFER MARTIN A. MOELLER J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR SCOTT C. SMITH JACK B_C ARKE, JR, BRIAN M LEWIS' BRADLEY E. NEUFELD PETER M. BARMACK JEFFREY V. DUNN STEVEN C. DEBAUN' ERIC L. GARNER' DENNIS M. OF W.F PEXRCE ROBERT W. ARGREAVES C. MICHAEL COWETf BRUCE W. BEACH ARLENE PRATER MARK A. EASTER MICHELLE OUELLETTE KEVIN K- RAN DOLPH CYNTHIA M. GERMANO MARGUERITE 5, STRAND KYLE A. SNOW JAMES B. GILPIN KIM A. BYRENS DEAN BERLE' SONIA RUBIS CARVALHO JOHN O. PINKNEY PIERO C. CALLAR OA CWIGHT M. MONTGOMERY RICHARD T. EGGER NRANKLIN C. ADMMS ILLIAM WOOD ERRILL NII LLI AM O. OAHLING, JR. 'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON G. HENRY WELLES DAVID J. HANCOCK HAYLEY E. PETERSON ROGER K. CRAWFORD SHMWN O. HAGERTY P. MORRIS KEVIN T. COLLINS DAVID W. NEWMAN JENNIFER T BUCKMAN MARIA E. GLESS GLEN W. PRICE MARYMICHAEL MCLEOD JAMES R. TOUCHSTONE STEVEN M. ANDERSON ROBERT L. PATTERSON BRYAN K. BENARD JAMIE L. RAYMOND PULA C. P. CA SOUSA YSA M. SALTS M AN MARCO A. MARTNEZ JOHN F. WALSH JEFFRY F FERRE DORINE LAWRENCE HUGHES ALISON D. ALPERT KRISHAN 5. CHOPPA JAMES C. TURNEY CHAEL D. OOLIOA Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA. Gentlemen: KAREN M. FREEMAN JOHN O. XIGGINDOTIAM LATIY SUBRAMANIAN US[ MESHREKY CRAIG M. SHALL JEFFREY SM BALLINGER M. THERESA TOLENTNO A THERESA E. NTONUCCI MELISSA W. WOO E. SEAT! ARTIER TRANS T, TRAM CARMEN MARTNEZ RE OSABA TRACIE PHAM JASON C. BLESS WILLIAM J. PRIEST DANIEL 5. ROBERTS MARY BOTH COBURN LINOSEYA. COTIAM DANIELLE E. GERBER CHRISTNA A. HENRY ELSE L. SPEND KRISTN C. VARNER TAM B. TRAM DANIEL E- KATZ RAYMOND BEST 195]I JAMES H. KRIEGER 11913-19]51 EUGENE BEST lI 8 93 1981) May 11, 2001 74-76O HIGHWAY 1 1 I, SUITE 200 I HENAN WELLS, CALIFORNIA 92210 POST OFFICE BOX 1 3550 PALM DESERT, CALIFOR141A 92255 TELEPHONE (760) 568-261 I TELECOPIER (]60) 3-40-6698 BBKLAW. COM OF COUNSEL CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER MICHAEL D. HARRIS' NNE T. THOMAS OONALD F. ZIMYER' CHRISTNA L. OYER D. BRIAN REIDER KIRK W. SMITH CHINA O. HARRIS WARREN B. GIVEN ROBERTJ. HANNA G DANIEL STEVENSON OFFICES IN RIVERSIDE 1909) 5B5-1 C50 ONTARIO I9 919B9-BEB< SAN GOOD I619) GZGI 300 ORANGE 17 1 Al ROO 5940 Re: ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT #41,GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-078, ZONE CHANGE 2001-101, SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E AMENDMENT 45, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-703, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30125 Thank you for the opportunity to address you on May 8, 2001 regarding the above - referenced matter (item VI F. on the Agenda). I wish to restate briefly, comments made on that date, as well as an additional comment that is important to this matter, On behalf of the La Quinta Country Club immediately to the north of the proposed project, our concerns are as follows: 1. The lot size of 6,000 square feet is proposed as opposed to your minimums of 6,500 square feet. There were no reasons given in the staff reports of why the reduction was necessary or desirable. It would appear that if you are going to reduce the item below your stated minimums, there should be a good reason for same. 2. There was nothing in the staff reports relating to the square footage of the houses. -I spoke with a representative of the prespective developer of the property who indicated the square footage was planned from 2,400 square feet of living area to in excess of 3,000 square: feet R2,P11BID1E182497 ) IJ � LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of La Quinta May 11, 2001 Page 2 of living area. If that is the case, and is included in the approvals, we have no problem and would support the development. 3. We have concerns regarding the security of the units and the traffic that will be generated therefrom. It is proposed, and I would assume be assured, to be a single family development which is a compatible extension of the existing properties to the north and east. 4. The item not mentioned which I believe is important to this proiect is the relocation at an early date of the existing parking for hotel employees. The condition as stated in the staff report would indicate prior to any earth moving activities, the parking would need to be relocated. We agree with this and suggest that you clarify this matter by indicating that prior to any earth moving activities on any part of the property, the parking facilities be relocated to the satisfaction of the City. It is important for this project as well as adjacent property owners. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to address the Commission. I am sure you will consider the comments made and make the best judgment possible for the City of La Quinta as well as the surrounding area. ;VL� rwin of BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP DJE:alr RWUB\DJEU82497 ) J � PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MAY 22, 2001 CASE NO: TRACT MAP 29894 PROPERTY OWNER: COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT REQUEST: TO DEVIATE FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT APPROVED MASS GRADING PLAN LOCATION: THE NORTH SIDE OF AVENUE 54 BETWEEN JEFFERSON STREET AND MADISON STREET BACKGROUND: The City Council at its November 21, 2000, approved the Specific Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract for Country Club of the Desert generally located on the north side of Avenue 54 between Jefferson Street and Monroe Street. Tract Map 29894 subdivided 988 acres into 819 residential lots and golf, common area, street, and miscellaneous lots. Project Request: The Public Works Department plan checked and approved the mass grading plans for the area bounded by Madison Street, Avenue 54, Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. The approved plans show a typical cross section of berming along all streets not to exceed eight feet in height (Attachment 1). However, detail contours show otherwise. Along Avenue 54 at one location, berming/mounding is as much as 16 feet higher than the adjacent street with the remainder complying with the typical cross section (Attachment: 2). In addition to the grading plan, the applicant has submitted to the Community Development Department plans showing not only the contoured grading but also the location of the walls/open fencing. Along Avenue 54 the developer has deviated from the grading plan in that the berm heights at their highest point, now reach an elevation of 21 feet with an average of 16 feet in height. The walls will be located below the top of the beam on street frontage. The wall setback varies between 15 to 25 feet for an average of 20 feet from the ultimate right of way. Plans are in the Community Development Department for your review and will be available at the meeting. G:AW PDOCS\PCStfRptCCDevberm.wpd RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff. Attachment: 1. Typical cross section 2. Photographs of contour grading on Avenue 54 Respectfully submitted, GY.1 CHRI TIN DI IORIO, tanning Manager G:AWPDOCS\PCStfRptCCDevberm.wpd ATTACHMENT #1 N N I j i i { - No Itj �. Y ft+Yr yyWFt_'j °J � 4� X n „i.; !!I�. A x- - � . <5r :. f'. �� �� i 1