PCMIN 07 08 1997 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78.-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, Califomia
July 8, 1997 4:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 4:10 P.M. by
Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Seaton to lead the flag salute.
B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton,
Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. It was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Seaton/Butler to excuse Commissioner Gardner.
C. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer,
__ Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
D. Consultants present: Special Legal Counsel Richard Zeilenga, Randy Nichols and
Tony Locacciato of Impact Sciences, Environmental Impact Consultants.
II. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
A. Staff requested that Public Heating Item B be heard as Item C and Item C be heard
as Item B. Unanimously approved.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of June 10, 1997.
Commissioner Tyler asked that the minutes be amended on Page 6, Item 30 to delete
the word "not" where it appeared twice, and Page 7, Item 32 to correct the spelling
of the word "transit". There being no other corrections, it was moved and seconded
by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously
approved with Commissioner Kirk abstaining.
.... B. Department Report: None
PC7-8-97 1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Environmental Assessment 97-340, General Plan Amendment 97-054, Change of
Zone 97-083, Specific Plan 121-E. Amendment #4. Tentative Tract 28545. Site
Development Permits 97-607 & 97-608. Certificate of Appropriateness 97-003; a
request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for:
* Recommendation of approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact.
* Recommendation of approval of a Specific Plan amendment to update the
Specific Plan and allow new development and uses for the area generally
comprising La Quinta Resort, Santa Rosa Cove, La Quinta Resort and Golf
Course, abutting tracts and hillsides to the west, and the southeast corner
of 50t~ Avenue and Eisenhower Drive.
* Recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment and Change of
Zone from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for .6
acres at the northeast corner of Calle Mazatlan and Camino Quintana and
17.6 acres at the southeast corner of 50~ Avenue and Eisenhower Drive and
other General Plan Amendments necessary to accommodate resort uses.
* Recommendation of approval of a Tentative Tract to divide La Quinta
Resort and Club area into 135+ numbered lots and 3_~+ lettered common
area lots on approximately 62+ acres for the area generally encompassing
the La Quinta Resort and Club, west of Eisenhower Drive generally to
Calle Mazatlan and South of Avenida Fernando.
* Recommendation of approval of a Site Development Permit to allow
removal of ten tennis courts, 18 hotel units, employee parking, and
replacement with single family residences and a health spa for the area
generally located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of
La Quinta Tennis Club and on the east side of Avenida Obregon.
* Recommendation of approval of a Site Development Permit to allow the
construction of a golf course/hotel maintenance complex, including a
19,440 square foot building and parking lot for all hotel and golf course
employees on 6.2 acres located on the south side of 50~ Avenue,
approximately 210 feet east of Eisenhower Drive.
* Recommendation of approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to assure
architectural compatibility between historic structures and proposed
construction pursuant to the Secretary of Interior Standards
PC7-8-97 2
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
1. Commissioner Tyler noted for the record that prior to this meeting, he had a
discussion with Ms. Della Davis, who said she represented some of the
homeowners' of the Mountain Estates a part of the Enclave development
portiort of Santa Rosa Cove.
2. Chairman Abels 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. Staff noted that a meeting had been held between KSL and
some of the property owners of the Duna La Quinta Country Club and some
resolve had been reached. The applicant would present those solutions. Staff
indicated additional letters and draft resolutions had been distributed prior to
the hearing.
3. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
4. Commissioner Kirk questioned Page 9 of the staff report and asked staff to
explain what was meant by zoning the property "Tourist Commercial" (TC)
that it would "remove the density of development as a factor for the resort
residential uses." Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated the zoning of Tourist
Commercial has no density maximums or minimums nor any range that resort
residential development has to follow. If it was medium density residential
it wou. ld have to be between 4-8 dwelling units per acre. As Tourist
Commercial the density factor does not come into play and it is a matter of
complying with the code requirements.
5. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to identify on the map, the 13.6 acres that
were to be zoned Tourist Commercial. Staff identified the location on the
exhibits and explained the request as it related to this specific area.
6. Commissioner Tyler questioned Page 4 of the staff report regarding what
property the applicant was proposing to re zone. Principal Planner Stan Sawa
clarified that the area is only that land within the Specific Plan.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked about the site where the maintenance facility was
proposed to be constructed at the comer of 50th Avenue and Eisenhower
Drive and asked if there was anything else proposed to be constructed in this
area. Staff stated the area was zoned Low Density Residential and currently
no applications had been submitted for this area. He stated the applicant was
PC7-8-97 3
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
again requesting TC zoning, and anything proposed for this area would be
reviewed by the Commission. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio clarified
that anything developed in this area would be residential in nature as it is
zoned Resort Residential within the Specific Plan.
8. Commissioner Butler asked if the applicant would explain why the
maintenance facility was being moved to this location. Staff stated the
applicant could answer that question. Commissioner Butler stated that it was
difficult to understand the project when modifications are received at the
meeting.
9. Commissioner Woodard asked how the Commission could approve a project
when the proposed changes are submitted during the meeting. Staff stated it
is at the discretion of the Commission.
10. Commissioner Woodard asked how many 20-passenger buses were proposed
to be used. Staff stated six as presented by the applicant. It was not clear
how many would be used at any one time.
11. Commissioner Woodard asked if the parking plan was designed to be one
parking space for each bedroom and was there any provision for guest
parking. Staff stated there was no indication on the plans that guest parking
would be provided. Commissioner Woodard stated the lack of guest parking
could create a problem if the tenant brought more than one car to the unit.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio clarified that each unit has one to three
bedrooms and one parking space was provided for each bedroom.
12. Commissioner Woodard asked if the parking stalls were assigned to each of
the units. Staff stated that assigned parking was not indicated on the plans.
13. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify Finding #7 for Site
Development Permit 97-607 regarding signs. Staff stated this project is not
on Eisenhower Drive and therefore, did not need as large a sign as a separate
projeci fronting on Eisenhower Drive. Commissioner Woodard asked staff
if the applicant was to submit a sign program for Commission review. Staff
stated if there is a sign program, it would be approved by staff.
PC7-8-97 4
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
14. Commissioner Woodard asked about the easement that would be used for
emergency uses. Staff stated that KSL did not have any use or control over
the gate on Avenida Obregon. Commissioner Woodard asked if the Fire
Department would have to travel around the tract to reach the cul-de-sac, and
did the Fire Marshal have a problem with the circulation plan. Staff stated
the Fife Marshal did not indicate any problems with circulation. Staff stated
that if the Fire Marshal were to see a problem during plan check, he would
require the necessary changes. The Fire Department does have access to the
gate.
15. Commissioner Woodard asked why a requirement was made for a third
interior entrance into the employee parking lot. Staff stated they did not
require it; it was shown by the applicant. Commissioner Woodard asked
what the "L" shaped building next to the maintenance facility was proposed
to be. Staff stated it was an open yard area enclosed by a chain-link fence
referred to as a staging compound. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to
clarify what the wall is that is separating the maintenance facility from the
street. Staff stated it is shown as a living fence. Staff was requiring that the
entry gate, across from this building, was to be a solid gate to eliminate
visibility into the compound. Commissioner Woodard asked the height of the
buildings. Staff stated they were 22 feet. Commissioner Woodard stated that
the building silhouette would be seen from the street as you drive by. Staff
stated it would depend on the grading and line of sight.
16. Comnlissioner Woodard asked about the noise mitigation measures and
whether or not the noises were typical for residential uses. Staff stated it was
in compliance with a residential use, but staff would have to refer to the study
for exact information. Commissioner Woodard clarified that the noise would
be similar to a residential community. Staff stated this was true, except for
occasional occurrences.
17. Commissioner Woodard referred to Page 21, Item #6 of the staff report and
asked staff to explain what the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) was
referring to. Staff explained the Historical Preservation Commission had
approved the project subject to the applicant adding language into the report
regarding this item.
18. Commissioner Seaton asked staff what the height of the towers was on the
proposed Spa. Staff stated they were to be 42-feet. Commissioner Seaton
asked if the towers were different on the different buildings. Staff stated the
tower feature was proposed only for the spa. Commissioner Seaton stated
PC7-8-97 5
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
there appeared to be towers on the Casitas buildings. Staffclarified they were
chimneys and approximately 24-25 feet. Commissioner Seaton asked staff
to clarify what was being required regarding the asbestos removal. Staff
stated this was part of the air quality study for the Environmental Assessment
and there were special regulations the applicant would have to comply with.
Commissioner Seaton asked if this process would slow the project down.
Staff stated them was a possibility that it could. Commissioner Seaton stated
she hoped the applicant was making plans to use alternative fuels to help the
air quality.
19. Commissioner Tyler stated that according to the City standards, the noise
limit of 60 dba was appropriate for daytime uses and the 50dba was
appropriate for the night time, but activities that are a part of the maintenance
facility start at an earlier hour and the study should reflect this.
20. Mr. Larry Lichlighter, President, KSL, thanked the staff and Commission for
their time and energy on the project and asked how much time they would
have to make their presentation. Chairman Abels stated that due to the time
limitation, if the hearing was not completed within a reasonable time, they
would have to continue the hearing to allow time for the other cases on the
agenda. Discussion followed regarding the timing of the next meeting. Mr.
Lichlighter stated that the importance of this project was evidenced by the
attendance at this hearing. Further, the La Quinta Hotel was one of the most
important entities owned by KSL. There are impacts from such projects, but
there is nothing this company would do to detract from this Hotel or the
surrounding community. They have tried to work with the neighboring
communities as much as possible to solve the impacts and they will continue
to do the best they can to solve the problems raised. Timing is critical to their
development, therefore, it was important to obtain their approvals as soon as
possible.
21. Mr. Scott Dalecio, President of Desert Operations for KSL, stated the project
as a whole integrates many pieces into one. They are building a spa because
it is a necessity. It is not just an amenity but keeps them competitive in the
resort marketplace. With respect to the units, there are 119 detached home-
ownership units. It is the owners option whether or not to place their unit
into a rental program. This is no different than what is done at PGA West or
the Tennis Villas, etc. With respect to the spa, the design attempt is to keep
the activity facing inward and quiet in general. The spa is anticipated to
PC7-8-97 6
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
generate in excess of $3 million in revenue to the City. The overall project
will produce over one half million dollars in Transient Occupancy Taxes
(TOT) each year. This year it will generate taxes in excess of $3 million.
Regarding the parking maintenance facility proposed for 50th Avenue and
Eisenhower Drive, this parking will accommodate a portion of the employees
who work at the Hotel. It is intended to replace the parking on Avenida
Obregon. The traffic will not increase as the employees will be taken to the
hotel via the shuttle service they will be providing. They anticipate having
a variety of vans, based on the employment volume. The majority of their
hourly work force comes from the cities east of La Quinta who already use
50th Avenue. What this parking lot proposes is to provide parking for the
employees before they reach Eisenhower, and therefore decrease the traffic
on Eisenhower Drive. It is KSL's opinion that they have mitigated most of
the noise problems, as well as the other negative impacts in regard to noise,
location of the maintenance facility, and landscape buffering for the
residential units. Regarding the chainlink fencing, it is only seen after you
have entered the facility, as the wall on 50th Avenue blocks the view of the
fence. The fence is used as a containment for the maintenance facility.
Securing the facility will be accomplished by a security office and roving
security guard. The facility will be locked down when not in operation and
activity ceases.
22. Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL, thanked the Commission for starting
the hearing early to accommodate the crowd. He further stated the timing of
these units was critical to get the construction completed during the off
season time in order to not impact the resort community. They are trying to
be responsive to the homeowner's concerns by making the changes that are
possible, to lessen their concerns. KSL has studied their assets and found this
resort facility to be the most cherished of their holdings. They would do
nothing to minimize the value of this project. While reviewing the project,
it was their determination that they did not believe additional hotel rooms
were appropriate for this area. Therefore, the resort integrated concept was
developed. It is designed to be between a resort and residential community
to integrate into the area. Mr. Hosea went on to explain the concept and
stated it was a $46 million dollar development which would give the City
TOT revenue as well as property tax revenue in addition to the $1.3 million
in building permit fees. The change of zone is required to have the ability to
have the activities that occur within the residential uses. They will be
restricted to residential uses within the Tourist Commercial areas.
PC7-8-97 7
Planning Commission Meeting ·
July 8, 1997
Regarding the density issue, under the old Specific Plan they were allowed
301 units. For the area west of Obregon and east of Avenida Mazatlan, there
are currently 200 units approved with 48 tennis villas built and 20 units south
of the 200 unit block that is also within this planed area which totals 220.
Recently an expansion of 77 rooms for the hotel was approved, but has since
expired. Currently four units are approved for the date grove at the comer of
Avenida Femando and Avenida Obregon making a total of 224 units allowed
in this area, less the 48 existing units. They are asking to build 85 in that
developable area. 34 units are in the existing TC zone that is east of Avenida
Obregon where existing hotel buildings are. This impact of the 34 units is
strictly on the hotel as the access is through Avenida Femando to Avenida
Obregon. 85 out of the 180-190 units allowed, remain to be built and would
access through the Santa Rosa Cove and other association gates. Mr. Hosea
went on to explain the expansion. They are trying to assess the impact to the
streets, security, and any other impact that may arise from the development
and they will pay on a monthly basis, the assessments that are determined.
As it relates to the parking issue, they have over parked this development to
allow the renting activities to occur.
The site at 50th Avenue and Eisenhower Street was selected to retain the
interior areas for residential uses and keep the parking and maintenance
facility uses close to the arterial rather than being internal to the project. By
placing this facility here it will lessen the impact on the intemal activities and
residential uses. They have created an appropriate buffer by bringing
landscaping, irrigation, and the completion of undeveloped properties. He
then introduced Mr. Hal Lynch to present the plan developed with the Duna
La Quinta residents.
23. Chairman Abels stated that the hearing would recess at 6:15 p.m. until 7:00
p.m. and continue on to 8:00 p.m. to give everyone an opportunity to speak.
24. Mr. Hal Lynch, indicated he was currently working with Duna La Quinta
residents and through a series of adjustments, they have been able to arrive
at a new plan. He identified an area adjacent to their area on the eastern
border where they have increased the separation to 240 feet between the
property line and main building. In that space, they have provided six home
sites. 'In addition, there is a 50-foot residential building setback from the
property line and additional landscaping to buffer the area adjacent to their
right of way. This would also be landscaped by KSL and dedicated to them.
PC7-8-97 8
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
A plan would be given to the homeowners to resolve all the details. By
pulling the maintenance facility back, it became evident that heavy
landscaping was necessary to cover the wall on the eastern edge. They would
also be increasing another wall area to 9-feet in height with heavy
landscaping on the adjacent site towards the homeowners. No parking will
be between the structure and the 9-foot wall. In addition, the doors facing
north and west will remain closed. The maintenance access point is a right-
in/right-out only, and they have moved it down 250 feet, which is across from
the driving range. This will also eliminate the potential of noise for the
residents across 50th Avenue.
25. Mr. Chevis Hosea stated they would continue to discuss this further at the
break with the homeowners and/or Commission in hopes of resolving as
many issues as possible. What they are requesting tonight from the
Commission was a conceptual approval. They will continue to work out the
details with staff.
26. Commissioner Woodard asked if the revised plan had been shown to the
neighboring property owners. Mr. Lynch stated they had seen the plan and
it was acceptable to the residents. There is a sense of approval from them
but, they will speak to this themselves.
27. Commissioner Tyler asked if this plan would provide the same number of
required parking spaces. Mr. Hosea stated there is a loss of parking spaces,
but there is an adequate number of parking spaces. They will lose 215
spaces, but will still have 300+ which meets their requirements.
28. Commissioner Tyler asked if there will be noise impact to the six new lots in
the future. Mr. Hosea stated that any future home buyers for these homes,
will be able to make that purchase decision, based on the maintenance facility
being in existence at that time. If they don't want the location, they will not
buy there.
29. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant had read and agreed with all the
conditions as proposed by staff. Mr. Hosea stated there needed to be a
discussion regarding the Conditions of Approval as they had some concerns
regarding the economic obligations for the construction of the south half of
50th Avenue.
PC7-8-97 9
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
·
30. Commissioner Woodard asked if the cul-de-sac, which was shown going to
the meandering sidewalk, will provide landscaping for the open area "A" and
"B", and will the wall continue past the cul-de-sac. Mr. Lynch stated this was
an oversight, it will be pulled and bent back into the parking area towards the
maintenance facility so it will have its entire full width of 30-feet.
Commissioner Woodard asked if the wall would continue. Mr. Lynch stated
it would.
31. Commissioner Tyler asked how the construction traffic for the 119 units
would be controlled. Mr. Hosea stated they will be able to have the
construction traffic go down Avenida Fernando to Avenida Obregon. No
construction access would be necessary through the Santa Rosa Cove gate.
They will wall the construction area and keep the impacts to acceptable levels
by going through Avenida Fernando and Avenida Obregon. Construction for
Phase Two (east of Avenida Obregon) would again go through the same
streets.
32. Mr. Donald Marrs, Santa Rosa Cove, stated his confusion about how the area
can be. changed to Tourist Commercial when it is in a residential area. If they
are constructing hotel rooms, it is understandable, but once you build homes
that are this close to the existing homes, you are competing for sales. Putting
the smaller units at a small price will hurt the market. This is going to
depreciate the value of the existing residences. Currently, they have a large
maintenance facility that is in the rear of the golf course and he did not
understand the need to move it. In addition, he is concerned why this
approval has to be done at this time of the year.
33. Ms. Della Davis, 45-771 Via Sierra, representing some Mountain Estates
homeowners within the Santa Rosa Cove, asked that the applications be
denied or postponed, as they felt their due process had been violated as the
notices of these proposed changes were sent during the summer months. The
public has the fight to view the development and study the prepared materials
and they were not available until July 7th. All requests require a change in
zoning and their HOA is against this change. Homeowners have invested
money into this area and have the right to assume, to believe, that the General
Plan will not be changed to accommodate KSL. KSL should use the land for
what the Plan calls for. High density is not what the General Plans calls for.
The Commission should ask KSL to keep the medium density and the tennis
courts.
PC7-8-97 10
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
34. Mr. Robert Monroe, 48-775 Avenida Femando, stated he had a letter
prepared by the attorney for the La Quinta Country Club. The letter was read
and stated their objections to the maintenance facility proposed to be
constructed directly across the street from the La Quinta Country Club. The
early arrival of vehicles and the equipment to be used, would be disturbing
to the neighboring residents. This would decrease the value of their property
as well. There is a great amount of competition for golf club membership.
La Quinta Country Club is looking forward to the development of residential
homes, in this area that would create a pool of potential golf memberships for
their club. Lighting could also be a problem. In short, they are requesting
that the Commission consider this application in light of the foregoing
comments and deny the applicants the use of the property.
Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 6:14 p.m. and reconvened at 7:01
35. Mr. Andy Vossler, 34-940 Lago Circle, stated his opposition to the
development of a maintenance facility to be constructed across from the La
Quinta Country Club. His home is immediately across from this proposed
development and he would like to see it moved to the south. He would
suggest that the applicant, who owns a triangular piece of property between
the three golf holes to the south of the proposed maintenance facility,
consider using this property for the same purpose. If this location would not
work, he would suggest they look into purchasing property somewhere else,
possibly south of the channel. His concems are for his family' s comfort and
safety as he does not agree with this use this close to his house. He has lived
in this area for 15 years and has had two vehicles stolen from his house.
Concerning the lighting, it has not been discussed to his satisfaction. If the
Comn3. ission is considering approving this project in phases, he does not
agree. It should be approved as a whole or require the applicant to find the
best location for the project. He recognizes that KSL is for profit and they
should be able to develop their property to its maximum value. Finally, it is
his understanding that due to the reduced use of the two current maintenance
facilities, there is a demand for this size of a building. This should also be
considered.
36. Mr. Charles Owen, 49-757 Coachella Drive, and homeowner within the Santa
Rosa Cove, and president of the Homeowners' Association for the Island II.
This plan with such short notice, has not allowed time for anyone to review
PC7-8-97 1 1
Planning Commission Meeting
._
July 8, 1997
and study the proposal. It is their desire that the Commission postpone this
hearin~ until a complete plan could be reviewed and allow the entire
community to attend in the fall. They could do the development next
summer. Time is needed to study the plan and come up with a solution.
37. Ms. Lilly Cook, 77-337 Avenida Femando, stated she has been a resident for
13 years and feels that La Quinta is the jewel of the desert and the hotel is the
gem of the desert. However, her concern is whether they be pros or cons,
there has been too little time for everyone to study 78 pages of a staff report
etc. She is not stating they dislike the project, as the hotel has only enhanced
the entire area. However, density, noise, lighting, security are all issues that
need to be discussed.
38. Mr. Phillip Burkhardt, a real estate/land use attomey representing the Tennis
Villas homeowners, P. O. Box 1369, Rancho Santa Fe, California stated he
is familiar with this process as he was a city attorney for the City of La Mesa
and understands the difficulty of the task that is before the Commission. Due
to the facts of this case, procedures put upon the Commission, the time frame,
and the massive applications submitted for approval this evening, would
make it legally impossible to approve today. There is no more severe change
in lanai use than what the Commision is being asked to similtaneously
approve in a short period of time. This project has been thought about for a
long time and the timing of this application in mid summer has been
calculated to give minimum opportunity for public input, which is exactly
opposite of why the law exists and the purpose of this board. There has been
no opportunity for neighboring communities to put input into this plan or the
General Plan Amendment. The Tennis Villas are the ones most directly
impacted and they were not consulted. Given the minimum notice required
by law, which is questionable, and a fluff letter from the developer, this
request should be put off for 90-days to study the density impacts. In terms
of a Negative Declaration approval, the Commission does not have the
environmental backup to determine that an increased density of this
magnitude would be legally sufficient. The Commission is looking at legal
problems and a public relations nightmare.
39. Mr. Wayne Nystrom, came prepared to speak against this project, but
understands that a tentative agreement has been reached to not oppose this
project, because they have been granted a number of changes. However, he
would still believe the project should be postponed to allow the La Quinta
Counti'y Club time to work out their problems.
PC7-8-97 12
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
40. Mr. James "Buba" Lloyd, 77-313 Calle Mazatlan, stated he was not against
KSL and does appreciate their organization. He has been a homeowner since
1988, when there were only 276 hotel units. Since then it has grown to 640
hotel rooms and now wants to increase by 119 with 205 keys which is a 32%
increase and they expect their streets to handle this load. They currently have
a serious stacking problem at the 50th Avenue and Eisenhower Drive entry
and it has been worse since the Mountain Course has been turned into a resort
golf course with limited membership play and opened to the public. In his
opinion, the density and zoning needs to be revisited, as well as the traffic
and noise factors. He questions how La Casa is going to get all the service
trucks in there for any special functions. They have to come down Avenida
Femando, through the Femando Gate, down Avenida Mazatlan and through
the project. They are taking away the ability to go north on Avenida
Obregon. They have a maintenance and security contract with KSL that will
have to be changed, but has not yet been done. This project should not be
approved yet. Their ground water runoff will create a problem. What they
are asking for is the time to review the documents associated with the project.
41. Dr. Frederick Kakis, 77-104 Calle Mazatalan, stated his property is the last
one on Avenida Mazatalan. Initially he was opposed to this project as he
shares the same concems of his neighors for their property values, traffic, and
enviromental concerns. Since that time he has met with KSL where they
explained the project, and alleviated most of his concems. He agrees with the
other speakers, that a decision on this project should not be taken hastily.
42. Mr. Wayne Guralnick, 74-399 Highway 111, Palm Desert, speaking on behalf
of the Lago La Quinta Homeowners' Association. He questioned Page 51 of
the staff report, second paragraph, the mitigation measures being considered
to negate the impact of the service trucks and equipment as well as the impact
of the employees and noise issues. Who will enforce the mitigation
measures. These are impossible to mitigate. The mandatory findings the
Planning Commission are required to make are on Page 75 of the staff report.
The Commission has to find that this project will not degrade the neighboring
vicinities. They have not spoken with the developer so they don't know if
they could mitigate the impacts. It is a commercial use incompatible with a
residential use. He would like to have noise experts study the Noise Study
to determine if this is true. How would any of the Commissioners like to
have this project next to their home.
PC7-8-97 13
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
43. Mr. JeffRodriguez, representing the Powells, 49-805 Lago Drive, who own
the very end unit at the driving range, read their letter. Their concern was
that they bought their home because of the view. Now a maintenance facility
will block this. A 17,000 square foot facility will impact their home as they
are directly across the street. They must have other property to construct this
facility. Currently, they have trucks going by that shake their walls and
windows that have caused cracks in their foundation..
44. Mr. Chevis Hosea, KSL, speaking in rebuttal of the issues raised, stated that
the issue of value diminishing their lifestyle is not accurate. KSL is
increasing their property value. Regarding the issue of Lago La Quinta, they
have tried to'reach Mr. McMillian and have been unable to reach him. The
proposed mitigation measures discussed before the meeting that are proposed
for Duna La Quinta, will also mitigate Lago La Quinta's concerns. They are
constructing residential units across from the existing homes to lessen the
impact. They cannot put a maintenance facility across from a four lane
highway and then inset it 200 feet with a 32 foot landscape buffer and a five
foot berm with a six foot wall and still maintain the use as it is intended to be.
Regarding summer months, they cannot be held to do development during
season times. The goal is to complete the construction prior to the peak
season time. They would encourage the Commission to separate the issues
and not cloud it with non-real estate issues. This development will assist
with the security concerns, as there will be a reduced ability for crime to
occur becaue the development will be there and the security they are
providing will be present as well as the lighting. As to whether or not it can
legally be approved, they would suggest that the City's legal counsel can
answer this question. Stacking at Santa Rosa Cove can be worked out. This
property does not further impact that stacking. They will have 85 additional
homeowners accessing this community. The primary access will be the
Avenida Fernando gate and key access will be both the south and north
entrances of Avenida Obregon.
45. Mr. Scott Dalecio, stated that in the revised plan, as discussed with the
homeowners, KSL reduced the size of the building from 20,000 to 16,000
square feet. Opposite the La Quinta Country Club access, is the access for
the residential portion of the project. The lighting is not high, but is in
accordance with the Dark Sky Ordinance. The Commission should know that
this parking lot does not accommodate the entire staff of the hotel. 30-35
vehicles from the golf maintenance workers arrive at the earliest hours. The
PC7-8-97 14
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
majority of the traffic comes later in the morning with the housekeeping and
restaurant employees. A fully occupied hotel, at the most, needs 60
employees for the housekeeping component. From there they have the food
and beverage employees. Security is an issue to them as well. This
development cleans up the area and gives a presence of security to improve
the whole area. The La Casa, which is located at the southwest corner of the
hotel property complex, is an older structure that is used mostly for meetings
and hotel functions. Occasionally there are off-site functions; in that case,
access will be allowed through the Santa Rosa gate. Access is still allowed
through the hotel for their electric carts and vehicles with the different
pathing methods they have worked out to accommodate this. It is their belief
that they can control this issue to mitigate the noise and supply the area
accord, ingly and respect the neighboring resident.
46. Commissioner Woodard asked the applicant to clarify they were proposing
to sell the units at a price of approximately $300 a square foot. If so, what is
the recent sale price of the residences in the vicinity. Mr. Hosea stated their
recent polling showed the Tennis Villas were selling for $135-150,000 and
they are approximately 1,200-2,000 square feet. Their units are 815 to 2,000
square feet.
47. Commissioner Woodard stated that if all the approvals were received at this
meeting, what is their time frame for construction. Mr. Hosea stated they
would like to start the first phase of construction in September with
demolition in August and deliveries in March. The spa would be completed
by the end of January. Commissioner Woodard asked if the approval was put
off for three months, would the construction be during the season? Mr.
Hosea stated that it would be. They would like to get the heavy construction
work, such as the concrete and lumber tracks, etc. in while the residents are
away. The construction would be to build themselves out of the area to be
away from the surrounding homes, as the season begins. Commissioner
Woodard asked if this was a realistic time frame. Mr. Hosea stated it was.
·
48. Commisioner Woodard asked staff if the applicant did not get the approvals
within their time frame, would the construction disturbance be an
intimidation to the residents during the peak season. Planning Manager
Christine di Iorio stated that the hours of construction are governed by the
Municipal Code.
PC7-8-97 15
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
49. Commissioner Woodard asked about the storing of cut grass on site and how
this problem would be handled. Mr. Scott Dalecio stated they have
agreements with Waste Management for disposal of the grass on a regular
basis, or three times a week. The grass will not be stored on site.
Comniissioner Woodard asked what the hours of work for the employees of
the maintenance facility would be. Would they be agreeable to a time
restriction on the employee arrival time to alleviate the noise issue. Mr.
Dalecio stated they have always operated within the time schedule as stated
in the Municipal Code. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern about the
noise that would be generated. Mr. Dalecio stated the noise will be going
away from the residential, southbound to the golf course. Commissioner
Woodard asked if the equipment at the facility was outside the courtyard or
inside the building. Mr. Dalecio stated it was to be inside the facility. They
have purchased some electrical equipment in conjunction with the other
equipment to help off-set the noise factor.
50. Commissioner Woodard asked if the noise proposed would be similar to that
which is currently existing. Staff stated it has been mitigated in the noise
study. Mr. Dalecio stated they had added a wall to help mitigate this issue.
Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant had met with the La Quinta
Country Club. Mr. Hosea stated he had spoken with Mr. Kerr, but did not
meet Mr. McMillian. Commissioner Woodard asked the applicant to explain
the card gate on Avenida Obregon. Mr. Dalecio explained that the intention
of this project is to maintain the privacy of the residents and the
exclusiveness of the membership. Therefore a gate will be placed on the
northern most end of Avenida Obregon to restrict access to hotel guests, or
members only, or residents going to their homes.
51. Commissioner Woodard asked the applicant to explain how many units
currently exist in this area. Mr. Hosea stated there are 48 currently existing.
Commissioner Woodard asked how many Tennis Villas would be allowed to
be constructed. Mr. Hosea stated 224. Commissioner Woodard verified this
was the number that could be built without having to come back and ask the
City for any approvals. He then asked what the sizes would be. Mr. Hosea
stated they are the same as what is existing. The smallest unit would be
1,200 square feet.
PC7-8-97 16
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
52. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to verify this. Principal Planner Stan
Sawa stated that based on the map, there are 48 existing and built in the
Medium Density Residential area. At a minimum, 200 are permitted leaving
152 to be built. Commisioner Woodard asked staff to clarify the issue of
density because it appeared that the applicant was reducing the density, not
increasing. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that
a specific plan is a document that allows flexibility to the zoning designation
and development standards that are in place on the site. The specific plan
allows "X" number of units to be developed. If those areas are not identified,
they can take those units and spread them throughout the development
anywhere in the specific plan area. Just because the underlying zone is
Medium Density Residential does not diminish the fact that the specific plan
allows a total number of units. The zoning district governs therefore, so it
will be up to eight units per acre versus what the specific plan allows in its
current configuration for this area. The zoning is there, but the specific plan
governs. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the other issue it that the
specific plan was approved for 1,500 residential units. With the specific plan
and the recommendation for the General Plan redesignating to Tourist
Commercial, we have reduced the number to 1,418. The density arrived at
was by taking all the areas and their density specifications to arrive at the
original 1,500 units. With the removal of the Low Density Residential and
the MDR and changing it to TC, staff has reduced the amount of residential
units allowed within the specific plan. They have also added one per ten
acres for the hillside area to reach 1,400 units. Commissioner Woodard
asked if they were to continue on with the same trait type as what is existing,
how many units would they be allowed? Planning Manager Christine di
Iorio stated they currently have 900 residences developed and they could have
1,500 units over the specific plan area. Commissioner Woodard asked if they
continued to build the existing Tennis Villas in the subject area, how many
units could be built. Would it be more or less than what they are proposing
now. Mr. Forrest Haag, Forrest K. Haag, ASLA, Design and Land Planning,
planner for the project, stated that it would be roughly 120 units. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the new units they are
proposing allows them to rent them out on a daily basis like some of the other
units currently within the Santa Rosa development.
53. Commissioner Woodard asked the applicant to explain what a tenant would
do when he arrived to rent one of the units. Mr. Hosea stated they would
check into the hotel and would receive all the amenities the hotel offers.
PC7-8-97 17
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
54. Commissioner Tyler asked if the property owner would have all these
amenities available to them when they signed their agreement with the hotel.
Mr. Hosea and Mr. Dalecio stated that it would depend on what the owner
wanted as part of his amenity package. The services are on a day by day basis
for the tenants. Mr. Dalecio clarified that there are units within the Santa
Rosa Cove that the property owners rent out on the same rental basis. It was
up to the property owner.
55. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain what the easement
requirement was for the property against the mountain and is the applicant
agreeable to this. Staff stated the hillside easement is to ensure that the
mountain area would retain its designation as open space and would be
unbuildable. In return, the applicant was given a density for the easement.
The easement starts at the toe of the slope.
56. Mr. George O'Neil 78-809 Lago, asked the applicant when they had
contacted the residents at Duna La Quinta. Chairman Abels informed Mr.
O'Neil that he was to address the Commission and not the applicant. Mr.
O'Neil stated it was his intention to let the Commission know that the
applicant had not spoken with all the people they stated they had. At the La
Quinta Country Club they have a tremendous problem with grass and they
have it picked up three times a week. It has a tremendous odor and draws
flies. How many pieces of equipment are they refueling and will this become
the fueling station for the hotel use.
57. Mr. Scott Dalecio, stated they had proposed a maintenance facility that is
buffered and landscaped. He then displayed a picture of the area that is used
by the La Quinta Country Club for maintenance that showed an unkept
driveway. He stated they intended to be good neighbors with a well
maintained site. It will be hidden and operated appropriately.
58. There being no further discussion, Chairman Abels closed the public heating
and opened the heating for Commission discussion.
59. Commissioner Seaton asked the applicant if they had considered the
triangular piece as was recommended. Mr. Hosea stated that this site is
surrounded by three golf holes and has 100% fairway frontage. Whether or
PC7-8-97 18
·
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
not the facility is placed at this location, you still have the same access
problems. Their position is that if they can put the use behind the wall they
should not be penalized to take valuable fairway frontage to place a facility
that will be just as hidden and operable as the triangular site.
60. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern about the people not having
enough time to review the plans. The legal process that the City has to go
through to notify people was used and executed properly. The developer is
not required to meet with the individual neighboring communities. He can
understand their resentment and it is a difficult project to review. During the
public comment portion of the hearing, he wrote down the seven major issues
that were raised. He hears and understand their complaints and the rebuttal
to those complaints. However, he does believe that KSL has brought into the
design and planning process, some of the best firms in the United States.
Architecturally and planning-wise it is an excellent plan with a superb
projec.t. The issues are not architecture and design but the land uses. Based
upon this, he will recommend approval based upon certain conditions.
61. Commissioner Butler stated he agreed with Commissioner Woodard, and
after reviewing the documents, there are several issues that need to be
resolved. Noise, density, street problems, and security. It is his opinion that
those problems can be mitigated by the measures provided. He is in favor of
the project.
62. Commissioner Tyler stated he understood that this maintenance facility will
replace an older facility. Mr. Dalecio stated that was true. Commissioner
Tyler stated that in his opinion, whatever changes come out of KSL, it will
only enhance the historic property and it will be done in good taste.
However, the current property owners purchased their properties with the
idea that their amenities would be retained. Therefore the project must be
looked at from this perspective. Regarding density, and although there may
be fewer units, the proposed project does appear to be more dense than what
is' existing. The area along Avenida Mazatlan does not give the same
perception of high density that the colored area presents. Another concern is
the tr .ansportation in and out of this new complex with Avenida Mazatlan
taking most of it, although there are gates at either end. The issue of how you
can control the expansion of the traffic in and out of the gates is up to KSL
and the homeowners. KSL talked about closing off Avenida Obregon and
installing a gated entrance at the top of Avenida Fernando which is fine, but
PC7-8-97 19
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
there is already a gate that the applicant does not have control of at the south
end of Avenida Femando. It seems that if I arrived in the middle of the night,
I would get lost. If you have more people, you will have more noise. The
loss of the tennis courts is a concern, but if you go back to the original
numbers, them were to be 30 tennis courts planned. Now there are less units,
so it should work out the same. He too, takes offense with those who
complain that the City deliberately schedules these heatings when the winter
residefits are away. As a full time resident of the desert, he objects to the idea
that the business of the City should be restricted to the winter months. The
business of the City goes on 12 months of the year. KSL has demonstrated
that the applicant has done a lousy job of public relations to keep the
community appraised of what is going on. He additionally expressed concem
that changes are submitted to the Planning Commission at the last minute.
This project has been under development for a number of months. Presently
he has mixed emotions on how to vote.
63. Commissioner Kirk stated he shares the same concerns. He views the project
from two perspectives. One would be the process in that he is concerned that
not enough time had been given to the Commission or residents, as well as
the developer, to review staff's comments. In terms of the substance of the
project, he is impressed with the plan. The architectural detail is consistent
with the hotel; he is impressed with the elevations, landscape design,
placement of the buildings, and resolving the difficult circulation issues. He
is supportive of staff's conditions and in particular the condition that
preserves the open space in perpetuity. In terms of voting, he would prefer
to not penalize the project for bad processing, but believes the good of the
project outweighs the bad process. The project is good for the City, KSL, and
everyone. He applauds KSL for trying to work with the residents and
redesigning the facility to accommodate their concerns.
64. Chairman Abels stated he agreed with all his fellow Commissioners.
65. Commissioner Woodard stated that regarding the substance of the project, the
people should look at how KSL is dealt with. What they are proposing.
66. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Woodard/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-
039, recommending certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 97-340, subject to the
Findings and mitigation measures.
PC7-8-97 20
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997 '
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner,
ABSTAIN: None.
67. It was moved and seconded by COmmissioners Woodard/Butler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 97-040, recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 97-054 subject to the Findings.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Woodard, and Chairman
Abels. NOES: Commissioner Tyler. ABSENT: Commissioner
Gardner. ABSTAIN: None.
68. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Butler to adopt
Planning Commission Revolution 97-041, recommending approval of
Change of Zone 97-083, subject to the Findings.
ROLL CALL.: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Woodard, and Chairman Abels.
NOES: Commissioners Seaton and Tyler. ABSENT: Commissioner
Gardner. ABSTAIN: None.
69. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Butler to adopt
Planning Commission Revolution 97-042, recommending approval of
Amendment #4 for Specific Plan 121-E, subject to the Findings and
Conditions of Approval.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner.
ABSTAIN: None.
70. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Butler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 97-043, recommending approval of
Tentative Tract Map 28545, subject to the Findings and Conditions of
Approval, as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and
· Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner.
ABSTAIN: None.
PC7-8-97 21
Planning Commission Meeting ..
July 8, 1997
71. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Butler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 97-044, recommending approval of Site
Development Permit 97-607, allowing construction of 119 resort residential
units and a health spa, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner None. ABSENT:
Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None.
·
72. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 97-045, approving the Certificate of
Appropriateness, as submitted, which ensures that the proposed construction
is appropriate for the existing historic structures, subject to the Findings and
Conditions of Approval.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman
Abels. NOES: Commissioner Seaton. ABSENT: Commissioner
Gardner. ABSTAIN: None.
73. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Kirk to adopt -
Planning Commission Revolution 97-046, approving Site Development
Permit 97-608 allowing the construction of a maintenance facility/employee
parking lot, subject to the amended Conditions of Approval.
a. Condition #2 was amended to state, "approving Site Development
Permit as presented on July 8, 1997, to be used."
ROLL CALL; AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner.
ABSTAIN: None.
Chairman Abels recessed the Commission for a five minute break at 8:23 p.m. and reconvened at
8:39 p.m.
B. Environmental Assessment 97-337. The Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan 97-029.
Tentative Parcel Map 28525. Conditional Use Permit 97-034. Site Development
Permit 97-603, and Development Agreement 97-002; a request of Stamko
Development Co. for Recommendation of a Certification of the Environmental
PC7-8-97 22
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
Impact Repor~ prepared for Specific Plan 97-029; Development Agreement 974)02,
Conditional Use Permit 97-034, Site Development Permit 97-603, and Tentative
Parcel Map 28525, as being adequate and complete; recognizing the overriding
considerations to certain adverse environmental impacts; and recognizing the
significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be avoided, but which can
be reasonably mitigated, if the proposed project is implemented, and a
recommendation to approve to divide an 87-acre multi-phased Mixed Commercial
proposal consisting of an auto sales/service mall and a retail complex, subdivision
of the site into ten parcels, a Conditional Use Permit to allow auto service/sales,
review of the building elevations and development plans for five auto sales
facilities, and a Development Agreement. Staff noted that the proposed La Quinta
Centre Drive was in the process of being changed as La Quinta Center Drive was
already in existence.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for a staff report.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
·
2. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify whether this hearing was for all
phases or just Phase I. Staff stated Phase I includes the Site Development
Permit applications for the five dealerships; Phase 2 was for future auto
sales or related uses and Phase 3 is a future retail center. Phases 2 and 3,
of the site, are conceptual and would be brought back to the Commission
when Site Development applications had been received.
3. Commissioner Woodard asked if conceptual buildings were to be approved.
Staff stated the building schematics were before the Commission as a part
of the Environmental-Aesthetics in relation to the view impact of the
mountains. Staff stated that the computer simulated conceptual drawing that
showed the development as it was initially proposed with the 50-foot height
and the other buildings at 30-feet in height. Since staff had been working
with the Environmental consultant new computer drawings had been drawn
to show what the buildings would look like if:
a.) reduced to 25-feet in height
b.) reduced to 25-feet in height and staggered with a minimum 65 foot
'separation.
PC7-8-97 23
Planning Commission Meeting .
July 8, 1997
4. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Commission's approval of the computer
simulation alternative would be final. Staff stated there was flexibility
regarding the approval. However, the drawings would give the general
parameters for development as to the City's intent. There remains an
option, under the mitigated measures, that allows the applicant to come in
with site-line plans if the applicant wanted to submit an alternative. Staff
is asking the Commission to give their recommendation as to what will be
allowed: buildings 25-feet in height in a straight line, or the buildings
separated at a minimum of 65 feet.
5. Cornniissioner Woodard asked for clarification in that during the review of
the Home Depot site, staff stated the parking could be reviewed at a later
date for the Second Phase. Now staff is saying that the Commission should
address the buildings even though they are conceptual and will be reviewed
at a later time. Staff stated this was due to the environmental impacts and
the mitigation measures that were being imposed on the development. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that with the approval of the Development
Agreement, the Commission was freezing the height limitations and sizes
of the buildings to the extent there is any concern. The plot plan may vary,
but the height and sizes will not change. Discussion followed regarding the
building placement.
6. Mr. Randy Nichols, Impact Sciences, EIR Consultant, clarified that the one
exhibit shows the 50-foot and 30-foot high buildings that are in the same
location. There is no change in the setbacks. The second drawings brought
the buildings down to 25-feet in height to open up the view of the
mountains. The third exhibit showed the 25-foot high buildings staggered
50-feet into the site (100-feet from highway) to reveal more of the
mountain.
7. Commissioner Woodard asked if the dealerships were each submitting their
own site developments permits. If so, would the Commission be able to
review each of the dealerships architecturally, or would this hold up the
entire project. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that the Commission
had the site development for each project before them at this time. The
Commission could approve the overall development and those things that
are general. If there were particular issues, they could be dealt with
individually and not hold up the project. She was unaware of the
interrelationship of the dealerships.
PC7-8-97 24
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
8. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to clarify whether the Commission was
approving the setbacks that were part of the Environmental Assessment or
a part of the Development Agreement and if the Development Agreement
is going to set conditions for all three phases. His concern is that Phase 1
is being reviewed for site development and yet, the Commission is talking
about setbacks on Phase III. Staff stated these were separate issues. The
entire Specific Plan was being reviewed which deals with all three phases.
Commissioner Kirk asked if the conditions would deal with setbacks as they
relate to all three phases. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated they could
to the extent the Commission wanted to add them. Presently, as drawn, the
buildings have reached their maximum height and density. Therefore any
requirements contained in the Specific Plan are also included in the
Development Agreement. For example, should the Commission want to
mitigate the view shed even further than what is required by the EIR, this
is the Commission's prerogative. The staggering is not required by the
EIR, but the Commission could decide to add the staggering to further
mitigate the measure. The simulation is to visually show the Commission
what the two alternatives would look like staggered. Should the
Commission decide that further mitigation measures are needed, they may
want to consider requiring the staggering on the setback for Phase llI. This
would'then be included in the Specific Plan and Development Agreement.
Commissioner Kirk asked if this could be deferred to Phase II1. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that once a Development Agreement is
approved, it grandfathers all elements put into place.
9. Commissioner Woodard asked if buildings 2 and 4 were staggered, could
the Commission require the wall to be pushed back as well. Staff stated
there was no wall proposed, it was a sidewalk. Commissioner Woodard
asked if the Commission was to address Buildings 7 & 8, which he
considered to be too big and long and is opposed to, at this time or later.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated they would be addressed at a
later time, during the Site Development permit review. Commissioner
Woodard asked if the Commission's responsibility at this time was only to
address those issues that dealt with the EIR. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated that was true, except they must define the density,
intensity, and height of the building to establish the maximum envelope.
PC7-8-97 25
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
10. Commissioner Seaton asked when the Commission would deal with the
wall. EIR Consultant Randy Nichols stated the wall was included as an
example of the worst case scenario. If a future developer would want a
wall, it was best to visualize it at this time therefore, he had included it for
the Commission's discussion and review.
11. Commissioner Woodard stated that if Building 8 was too long and the
Commission required them to split it into two buildings, it would decrease
the amount of allowable floor area and could affect the project. Planning
Manager Christine di Iorio stated they have the option to move the building
somewhere else and not lose the space. Commissioner Woodard questioned
whether or not the Commission should address this issue now or later if the
total amount of area is important. Staff went on to explain "Floor Area
Ratio" and line of sight issues that were followed by discussion.
12. Commissioner Woodard stated that the portion of the development that
fronts onto Highway 111 did not have any berming and the Commission
had been trying to require developments along Highway 111 to have, at a
minimum, a three-foot high berm. He did, however, understand that a
berm could not be constructed inside the retention area. However, it was
his understanding that the retention area was further south on the site. He
would like the berm and retention basin to work together to hide the long
continuous wall. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the wall will
have insets so that it will not appear to be so straight. The retention area
was needed for the drainage. Staff suggested the landscape architect
address this issue.
13. Mr. Chuck Shephardson, Horton Shepardson Associates, stated this section
along Highway 111 did have some retention. It is a small representational
area that undulates both upwards and downwards to appear to have a wash
runnirtg through it. Commissioner Woodard asked if the landscaping was
to be a desert environment. Staff stated it was in compliance with the
Highway 111 Guidelines. Mr. Shephardson stated this landscaping is what
is termed a lush desert environment. There is turf with meandering mow
curbs on both sides of the.walk, but keeping away from the curb at
Highway 111. They have been working with the City's landscape architect
to conform to the Highway 111 Guidelines. They will be using greener
plants that are drought tolerant. Commissioner Woodard questioned where
desert landscaping was used on Highway 111. Discussion followed
regarding the landscaping.
PC7-8-97 26
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
14. Staff displayed and discussed the elevations with the Commission.
Commissioner Butler asked if Parcel 5, on Adams Street, was the
·
dealership with the parking on the roof. It appeared to him that from the
front you do not see the second story. Staff stated this pad did have plans
for parking on the roof, and from the elevations, the front of the building
is facing in towards the center of the project. The parking on the roof is
not seen from the street. Staff continued to go through the different
elevation plans.
15. Commissioner Tyler asked to see the elevations for the rear of the buildings
facing Highway 1 ! 1. Staff explained that the developer had submitted new
elevations showing additional architectural details for Buildings ! and 2.
16. Commissioner Butler stated that in his opinion the elevations facing
Highway ! 11 would be more important than the front elevations, in some
instances. He asked staff to estimate what the site line of the buildings
would be from Highway 111.
17. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify the heights of the buildings.
Staff stated the architect would need to address this issue.
·
18. Commissioner Seaton asked if the front of the dealerships faced the circle,
where did the service bays face? Staff explained the building did face the
circle. Regarding the service bays, they would face different directions,
depending on how the building was oriented on the site.
19. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio explained Parcel 1, or the future auto
dealership building. She pointed out that added elements had been given to
break up the building line. Commissioner Butler asked staff to indicate the
line of site or what would be seen from Highway 111.
20. Mr. Randy Nichols, EIR Consultant, reviewed the EIR process and the
findings contained within the EIR report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
PC7-8-97 27
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
21. Commissioner Butler asked if there were any developments planned for the
property facing 4$th Avenue. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated that the majority of this property is owned by the City'
Redevelopment Agency and Mr. Hammer. The City has currently entered
into a Exclusive Right to Negotiate with a potential developer for a driving
range. The City to date, has not received any applications, but the City has
entered into a potential agreement to sell a part of this parcel. The
remainder will be for affordable housing.
22. Commissioner Tyler asked what was the zoning for the southwest corner
of 47th Avenue and Adams Street. Community Development Director
Jerry Herman stated it is currently zoned high density residential apartments
that are a part of Lake La Quinta. An existing well site is across from the
site ahd to the west is a small triangular piece that is designated as
commercial. Further north of 47th Avenue and west of the well site, is the
Apollo project which is all commercial.
23. Commissioner Kirk asked what the Highway 111 Guidelines were regarding
the site plan. The amount of turf and landscaping for this project, in his
opinion, complied with the Highway 111 Guidelines. He then asked staff
what the percentages of turf was as required by the Guidelines. Staff stated
there were no percentages, just different zone areas that have different plant
material requirements. Commissioner Kirk stated that currently there was
too much turf and asked if any of the dealerships were proposing to use
alternative fuel vehicles. Staff stated this question would have to be
answered by the applicant. Commissioner Kirk commented that the report
stated there was an inferred fault on the site and asked what the physical
signs of an inferred fault were. Mr. Nichols, Impact Sciences stated he did
not know the exact data, such as a surface disturbance. The information
Was from the 1992 General Plan report and could be a number of things.
Commissioner Kirk stated that a number of assumptions had been made to
the 19~92 EIR, and asked if the plan for this project was similar enough to
make the City comfortable with this EIR. Mr. Nichols stated the previous
project was similar enough to the new project to be comfortable borrowing
some of those assumptions. The kind of assumptions used in regards to
generation factors. How much sewage is generated by a mixed commercial
PC7-8-97 28
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
center. Whatever that factor was if it was identified in the previous EIR,
its inappropriate to use that same factor in this EIR. Commissioner Kirk
asked if the sewage consumption factor was the same for an office building
as a car dealership. Mr. Nichols stated that on a large scale master plan,
if you go to the sewer service districts, on a master plan they do it in broad
land use categories. An "X" number of gallons factor for general
commercial.
24. Commissioner Tyler asked if Mr. Nichols had an opportunity to draw upon
the traffic studies of any of the previously approved commercial projects.
Mr. Nichols stated they had retained an independent contractor to prepare
the traffic study, and they probably had reviewed the other recently
prepared traffic study, but he is unaware as to their impact on this report.
Discussion followed regarding the traffic study.
25. Commissioner Woodard asked why landscaping plans for the circular area
of the site had not been submitted. Staff stated landscaping plans had been
received for the interior of the site and a separate set for the Highway 111
and Adams Street. In regard to the landscaping plans for the circular area,
the landscape architect would need to address this. Commissioner Woodard
asked how the Commission would address something when there are no
plans. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that a
condition would be added to require this to come back to the Planning
Comrriission for approval.
26. Commissioner Woodard asked why the sidewalks were not required to be
meandering on the interior of the project; is there a reason for a change.
Staff stated they were not requiring it for the interior streets even though
they are public streets. Commissioner Woodard questioned why the City
was requiring the meandering sidewalk for other developers and not here?
He then asked if there were any requirements for berms. Staff stated none
had been required. Commissioner Woodard asked if the sign program
would be brought back to the Commission. Planning Manager Christine di
Iorio stated it would. Commissioner Woodard questioned the parking of
the circular driveway. Why would a traffic engineer allow cars to back out
into a major intersection traffic? Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that
PC7-8-97 ' 29
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
this particular traffic design had been used at two other cities with auto mall
- Santa Ana and Palmdale. Staff had contacted both cities and both cities
stated they have not experienced any traffic problems. Commissioner
Woodard stated the one major access, La Quinta Drive, would not be
enough. There needs to be another access point coming into La Quinta
Center Drive. Commissioner Woodard asked about the setback on the west
side of Adams Street. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the right
of way setback for Adams Street is 32-feet.
27. Commissioner Seaton asked how the special events project would be
coordinated. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it would be
coordinated through staff under a Temporary Use Permit.
28. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that staff was recommending
some changes to the Conditions of Approval. Senior Engineer Steve Speer
will be addressing the specific plan and the two letters from Lake La Quinta
residents.
29. Senior Engineer Steve Speer handed out revised conditions for the specific
-
plan and went over the changes with the Commission.
30. Commissioner Tyler asked if the traffic signal at La Quinta Centre Drive
would be operational for Phase 1. Senior Engineer Steve Speer discussed
the street improvements that would be completed during each of the projects
phases.
31. Senior Engineer Steve Speer went over the letters received from the
residents/property owners of Lake La Quinta.
a. Item//6 of the petition received from the property owners, requests
the speed limits be posted on Adams Street, 48'h Avenue, 47th
Avenue, and Caleo Bay. Staff stated that unless a speed limit is
specifically stated in State Law to be stated at 25 mph or unless a
· speed survey is conducted to verify the speed, the City cannot post
that speed limit.
b. In reference to their request that the perimeter streets not be used by
the auto dealership, staff stated that as long as a vehicle is operating
in compliance with State Law, the City cannot prohibit their use.
PC7-8-97 30
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
32. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio clarified some of the conditions: Page
63, Conditions #4 and 5, should be changed to refer to the west perimeter
wall. Page 67, Condition #2 should read: "east, south, and west." and "All
lights shall be shielded along the west property line."
33. Comn4issioner Woodard asked why there was no regional center monument
sign plan. Staff stated the applicant would be conditioned to bring this back
to the Commission for their approval.
Chairman Abels recessed for a break at 10:08 p.m. and reconvened at 10:15 p.m.
34. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Ms. Christine Clarke, representing STAMKO the developer,
gave a history of the company and the property. She informed the
Commission that the 1992 Draft EIR referred to in some of the letters
received, was never put into a final form for distribution. She went on to
give an overview of the project. She then introduced Mr. Bob Smith and
Mr, Marvin Roos, engineers for the project, Mr. Chuck Shepard, landscape
architect, Mr. Dave Stark owner of Mazda and representative for the
dealers, Mr. Tom Walker architect for the dealers, and Mr. Gordon
McCoy, lighting expert. Ms. Clarke went on to state that they had met
with the residents of Lake La Quinta and they had discussed their concerns.
The same process was held with the residents from Rancho La Quinta.
From xhose meetings, five issues remain. The first issue was to have the
auto body repair and painting placed at the east end of the site. This is not
possible. On the north side of the property the service bays run north and
south. The south side, Parcels 6,7,8, must run east and west due to
residential property to the south. To resolve this issue she proposes to take
the building on Parcel 5, and place a condition on Parcel 6 and 7, which are
schematic and conceptual at this time, and require that these buildings be
100-feet from the wall. This will address this issue. The second concern
is no loading or storing of vehicles on Adams Street. Exhibit 11 of the
Specific Plan shows the cross section of Adams Street which stipulates that
parking will not be allowed on Adams Street due to the bike path. What
they have done is design the interior streets of the project with a lane in the
middle where their trucks can be parked on the interior and unload. This
way the trucks will not even. enter the parcels. The third issue is a request
that the owners install landscape lighting on Adams Street. The lighting on
Pc7-8-97 31
·
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
the backside of the development has its intensity in the center of the project.
That is 40-feet on center on Adams Center Drive and Lake La Quinta
Drive. As you move into the dealerships it is 60-feet on center, and toward
the property line it is 80 to 100 feet on center. Those lights that are against
the wall on Adams Street will be shielded on the north, west, and south.
This created a situation whereby the residents of Lake La Quinta had no
lights in the 20-foot setback area. Therefore we have agreed to put in
landscape lighting to accommodate the Lake La Quinta project. The fourth
issue is to prohibit the use of any loudspeakers. This again was addressed
in the specific plan where none of the dealers would be allowed to use
loudspeakers. They are to use pagers or something similar. The fifth
concern of seeing the cars parked on the roof of the dealership. They have
agreed to construct a five and a half foot parapet to hide the cars that will
be stored on the top of the building. In addition, they will berm from
Adams Street to where the wall is placed, to a height of 2-feet and put a six
foot wall on top of that and then pull the berming down, back into the
project on the back side of the wall. In addition, they have also met with
Wilma Pacific and have agreed to almost the same issues: no loading or
unloading on Adams Street; no parking on Adams Street for anyone; light
poles shielded or installed at an angle for Adams Street will be shielded; no
structures will be constructed within 100-feet; and no buildings or site signs
facing Adams Street. Regarding the signs, they have one sign facing
Adams Street. They will add to the conditions, that "no building mounted
signs will be allowed along Highway 111 and Adams Street". Another
concern was that no service bays would be open to the west. This is
already addressed in the specific plan and they already comply with this as
stated above. Next was that the business hours be strictly enforced. This
is not a condition she is able to address. The final request for the median
to contain a full left turn movement on Adams Street is an issue that is
already addressed in Wilma Pacific's approval of Tract 24230, Condition
#22.B. where they are approved for this median cut. She then introduced
Mr. Marvin Roos, engineer for the project.
35. Mr. Marvin Roos, Mainiero and Smith, planners and engineers for the
projec[, stated the purpose of the specific plan is to outline the extent of the
development. The project is to be developed in three phases. At a future
PC7-8-97 32
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
date they will present the architectural detail. The immediate issue is the
approval of the auto mall itself. Commissioner Woodard asked for an
explanation on the monument signs. Mr. Roos stated the intent was to
show a general entry monument. A sign program would be submitted at a
later date.
36. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a dealer identified for the fifth
parcel'. Ms. Clarke stated her proposal is for the initial four dealerships.
She will not add any additional dealerships until after this is approved. The
layout is with the dealers themselves. Commissioner Tyler stated his
opposition to parking display cars along Highway 111, as it would create
a traffic nightmare. Ms. Clarke stated the dealers do not want the cars on
the highway due to their own concerns of vandalism, etc. Commissioner
Tyler inquired about the car display on the building rooftops. Ms. Clarke
stated the parking on the rooftops was for storage and involved Parcel 5
only.
37. Commissioner Tyler asked Ms. Clarke to identify what the "regularly
scheduled special events" would consist of. Ms. Clarke stated there would
be special events that would take place on the interior of the site,
coordinated between the dealers to create an activity to draw people to the
dealerships. An example would be food booths, balloons, etc. Each
vendor and event will have to apply to the City for a permit. Commissioner
Tyler requested that the conditions stipulate that no public address (PA)
system will be used. Ms. Clarke clarified that the special events would
occasionally have a band present and they would use a PA system. She
would'prefer that the condition stipulate that whatever is limited should be
for the operation of the facility and not for the events. Ms. Clarke asked
that a change be made to Exhibit 17 to show nine identification signs.
Commissioner Tyler stated that the plans call for one ground mounted
dealership identification sign per franchises; what does that mean? Ms.
Clarke stated this is a requirement of the manufacturers and it is on the
interior of the project. Of the four dealers involved, there are 16 franchises
and each franchise will have its own sign. Further, she requested that the
signs apply to the dealership and/or franchise and are for the interior only.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that Condition #22 could be
modified to read: "One wall mOunted dealership and/or franchise sign on
the interior only". Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with
Commissioner Woodard about approving the circular parking.
PC7-8-97 33
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997 ·
38. Commissioner Tyler expressed his desire to make a statement, that may not
be politically correct, but he would like to publicly thank the Community
Development Department of the City of Indio for providing an element of
comic relief for this review process. Surely a document that advocates the
relocation of the La Quinta High School, Adams/Truman Elementary
School, and the Desert Sands Administration Center at the intersection of
48m Avenue and Jefferson Street to mitigate an imagined emissions hot spot
of the proposed project was never meant to be taken seriously.
39. Commissioner Woodard stated the concern is the parking around the circle
element. In addition, when will plans for the plaza area be submitted. Staff
stated they would request the plans from Mr. Walker, architect for the
dealers. Mr. Walker stated the center parking is oriented around the four
dealerships to provide central parking. He stated he had seen many of these
circle-parking plans in action and they have proven to be very safe. The
traffic is more sporadic during the evenings and occurs at different times.
Commissioner Woodard asked what landscaping was planned for the circle.
Mr. Walker stated it is not designed as of yet. They intend to make it a
central focal point and have seasonal flowers with some hardscape.
40. Commissioner Woodard questioned the setback for Building 6. Ms. Clarke
stated that Building 6 is conceptual and she would agree to a minimum of
100-feet from the wall for Buildings 6 and 7. Commissioner Woodard
asked if the Commission was to address this issue of the setback. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the purpose of the Development
Agreement is to freeze all requirements at the time of approval. To the
extent that it is an offer to mitigate a concern of the neighborhood, it is best
to include the minimum setback from the wall at this time.
41. Commissioner Seaton thanked Ms. Clarke for her efforts on resolving as
many of the concerns as possible and for her enthusiasm.
42. Ms. Clark asked to address her concerns in regards to some of the
conditions. First, they will be changing La Quinta Centre Drive to La
Quinta Drive; Page 58, Item 10, she requests deleting the words "and used
vehicle storage areas"; Page 60, Item 22, add the following: "dealer and/or
franclfise. The architecture forms or design may require signage to be split
on more than one building face or element and subject to the Planning
Commission approval". Commissioner Woodard asked Ms. Clarke to
PC7-8-97 34
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
explain. Ms. Clarke stated that as the buildings are moving in and out, you
can't fit all the signs on one spot, therefore the signs have to be placed on
the building as they progress. Page 63, the shielded lights shall be for the
"north, west, and south". Page 73, Item #31, delete "and used vehicle
storage areas"; Page 75, Item #42 deleted as it is a duplication of #41; on
Page 76, Item #49, she would like the Commission to consider the rear
elevations at this meeting and change the condition from "prior to the
issuance of the building permits" as she was asking that the building
elevati, ons be approved now, so they do not have to resubmit the plans for
approval. Commissioner Woodard stated he had some changes he would
like to see made to the elevations and the plans would have to be reviewed
by staff and approved. Ms. Clarke stated she had no problem with this.
Staff stated the condition would be rewritten to remove "revised" and add
"shall be amended as submitted July 8, 1997, to include the additional
deSign treatment for approval by the Director of the Community
Development Department." Finally, the additional language "wherever
convenient add the following condition ........ "as added by the Director of
Public Works to the Tentative Parcel Map, she requested this language be
added to the Specific Plan, Site Development Permits, and the Conditional
Use Permit because there is language in each of these areas that is in
conflict with the Development Agreement.
43. Commissioner Tyler asked the applicant to explain what she was requesting
"and used vehicle storage areas" to be removed from the condition. Marvin
Roos, engineer for the project stated that the condition has to do with which
run off water is treated through a clarification system. They do not
understand why used vehicle storage is needed as this is not a service area,
it is a. parking lot for used cars. All service areas will be treated with
clarifiers.
44. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else in the audience would like to address
the Commission. Mr. Roger Wilner was called, but did not come forward.
Mr. Richard Zeilenga, Special EIR Counsel for the project, stated that Mr.
Wilner is a member of the law office for Mr. Corrodo's, the city attorney
for the City of Indio and staff had distributed the letter he submitted to the
Commission.
45. Mr. Francisco Urbina, 45-848 Paradise Lane, Indio, stated he was speaking
as a private citizen on this project as it directly affects him as this is a
PC7-8-97 35
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
projec~ that creates regionally significant environmental impacts. In
addition to the comments made in the letter delivered to the Commission at
this meeting, he would like to respond to Ms. Clarke's comments, that his
comments are emotional and trivial. He would like to remind everyone that
it is emotions that sets the human race apart from the animal kingdom. In
addition, there is nothing wrong with expressing emotions. His letter,
submitted tonight contains letters submitted by the City of Indio which deals
with CEQA issues and CEQA is more than emotions. This project has not
complied with the spirit and letter of the law of CEQA. He is certain that
La Quinta's attorney would say otherwise, but it is likely that this project
will end up in court anyway. His concern is also with the ethics of the
project and the members involved in the project who should be aware of the
American Code of Ethics for Planners. These ethics do state that planners
should take social equity consideration when considering a project. In
addition, he had some questions for legal counsel if he could ask, Mr.
Herman. Chairman Abels informed Mr. Urbina that he had 20 seconds
left. Mr. Urbina stated he would stop at this point as the letter addressed
to the City of La Quinta written by the City Attorney and Community
Development Department of the City of Indio, raise a lot of questions that
·
he did not believe were answered at this meeting.
46. Ms. Ann Madison, 78-735 Dulce Del Mar, representing the 81 homeowners
of Lake La Quinta stated they were not opposed to the project, but would
like the Commission to reconsider some of their objections. First, the auto
body shop whether facing north, southeast, or west, there is going to be
considerable noise from air wrenches, and it will travel a lot more than 180
feet. Therefore, they are requesting an 8-foot block wall on top of the
proposed two foot berm. A six foot block wall will not give them anything
that they need. They were asking that the perimeter street not be used to
test vehicles. They were told by staff that they have the right to use the
streets. They understand this, but as they test brakes and they come to a
screeching halt, you can hear this all over the subdivision. They therefore,
request that a condition be added that they cannot test their brakes on the
perimeter streets of Lake La Quinta. She stated she was confused as to the
location of the parking structure; will it be on Building 5 and how tall will
that parking structure be? Ms. Clarke stated it will be 19.5 feet with the
added five feet. Ms. Madison then asked that if Buildings 6 and 7 face to
the wqst, as the service bays appear to be, will they face their project. Ms.
Clarke stated the drawing are only conceptual and schematic and they are
PC7-8-97 36
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
required to face north and south. Finally, Ms. Madison stated, they were
concerned about the bands and boom boxes being noisy for their area.
They hope the Commission will reconsider and give them the 8-foot block
wall on Adams Street.
47. Jay Bayden, 47415 Via Cordova, stated he had one question he would like
to ask Ms. Clark regarding the median strip on Adams Street as to who is
completing the strip. Ms. Clark stated she will have to complete the
median all the way down to the south property line and the City will have
to complete the remainder. Mr. Bayden asked about the wall down Adams
Street coming across to the south. Ms. Clarke stated it would come across
to the green belt. Mr. Bayden then asked if there was a possibility of a 35
mph zone.
48. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public
hearing.
49. Commissioner Woodard stated he had such empathy for the applicant for
the amount of money and energy that had been put into this project, it does
not deserve some of the issues it has had to deal with, but so be it. The
conditions he would like to see added are that the parking on the center
plaza be eliminated as he believes it is an accident waiting to happen and
that space be dedicated to additional landscaping as opposed to more
paving. Additionally, that the plans for this area be submitted for
Commission approval and contain some type of art element. He then asked
if there was a pedestrian access from the plaza to the site and that it be a
protected walkway from the central plaza into each of the auto dealerships.
Staff stated it is a pedestrian sidewalk. Commissioner Woodard asked that
the sidewalk be eliminated and the area landscaped. Second, he has a
confli~t between berms and retention areas, one fights the other and you
cannot have both. Is it possible to find a solution allows both? Staff stated
that the landscape architect has indicated he will work to resolve this.
Commissioner Woodard stated he was concerned with how this would be
solved. Staff stated the project could be conditioned to solve the problem.
Lastly, he asked for clarification as to whether there is a wall at Highway
111. Staff stated there is a wall, but it is not in from of the commercial
PC7-8-97 37
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
development.
·
50. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that to address Commissioner
Woodard's concerns she recommends that a condition, #52, be added to the
Site Development Permit, specifying the deletion of the head-in parking
around the perimeter of the circular element at the intersection of Auto
Center and Auto Center Way and that the design plan for the circular
element be submitted to the Commission for approval prior to the
Certificate of Occupancy for the first building.
51. Commissioner Woodard asked that Buildings 6 and 7 be kept back 100 feet
from the wall along Adams Street. Staff stated this would be added to the
Conditions of Approval as Condition #24 of the Specific Plan, specifying
those parcels maintain a minimum of 100 feet from the Adams Street
property line. Commissioner Woodard also stated that he was
recommending that the sidewalks along La Quinta Drive and Auto Centre
Drive be meandering. As far as the elevations, he would make general
statements. First, he recommends that all the buildings along Highway 111
that have been approved so far, and which have been a concern of the
Commission, have the silhouette and parapet line broken up and made
interesting as opposed to a straight wall. Therefore, he would recommend
that Buildings 1,2,3,5 of the first phase, have additional tile pitch roof
elements added to the buildings and approved by staff. Planning Manager
Christine di Iorio asked if Commissioner Woodard was asking for more
than what was submitted at this meeting. Commissioner Woodard stated
that Highway 111 should be a consistent well designed corridor. Ms. Clark
stated she had looked at the proposed Eagle Hardware building and came
up with the revised design. Commissioner Woodard stated it needed more
of a pitched roof. The proposed design for the Chevrolet building,
Building 5, is unacceptable. Discussion followed regarding the building
design.
52. Commissioner Butler stated he disagreed with Commissioner Woodard and
believes the applicant has presented a beautiful design. The elevations do
have architectural treatment and the tile roof is too much. The berming and
view level does make enough of a buffer to the Highway 111 corridor so
the buildings will not be an eyesore. He was however, concerned that the
EIR was requiring the Planning Commission to make a decision on the
·
PC7-8-97 38
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
setback at this time. If so, he would like the 25 foot height limitations with
the 50 foot setback on Highway 111 for the greatest view of the mountains.
Discussion followed regarding the setbacks and the viewshed.
Commissioner Butler stated he had no objection to the circular parking
area; on Building//5 he was not aware of the parking on the roof. When
you drive in, parked cars will be seen. Ms. Clarke stated they would not
be seen as there will be a five and a half foot parapet wall around the entire
building.
53. Commissioner Tyler asked if the proper language had been placed in the
proper documents to allow future flexibility to position Buildings 1, 2, 3,
4, in ~e retail area. Staff stated they had already revised the Specific Plan
conditions. Mr. Randy Nichols stated the EIR recommends that building
heights be limited to 25 feet and separated 150-feet. Based upon the
exhibits submitted tonight, the EIR should be changed to reflect the
Commission's decision. Commissioner Tyler stated there needs to be
enough flexibility in the condition to allow the Commission the ability to do
what needs to be done as well as something that is economically viable.
Ms. Clarke stated her concern that the requirement for 150-feet between
buildings makes this feel like a bowling alley. They presented their
computer simulation to show that this needed space can be accomplished by
staggering and lowering the buildings. Discussion followed regarding the
building separations. Following discussion, Ms. Clarke asked that the line
of site be acceptable and the building height be limited to 25-feet.
54. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if the Commission makes the
determination that something along the lines of the computer simulation
with the staggering of up to 90-feet per building is adequate, it requires a
change to the mitigation measure in the EIR to be consistent with the
findings.
·
55. Commissioner Tyler asked if there would be any landscaping on the interior
streets. Ms. Clarke stated that they would not like to do meandering
sidewalks as there is parking all along Auto Centre Drive and Auto Centre
Way. Discussion followed regarding meandering sidewalks.
56. Commissioner Kirk stated he agreed that a 150 foot separation was too
much. A 90 foot separation with staggering would be acceptable. He had
PC7-8-97 39
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
no serious concern with the design of Building //5. In his opinion, the
parking on the roof is an efficient use of space. He would suggest that the
dealer reconsider parking on the from building, as an option. It would
allow 'them some freedom on the front elevation if they were to pull the
parking back off the roof top. Ms. Clarke clarified it was Building 5, and
pulling it back would give them a better elevation. The circular driveway
with the head-in parking was not an issue to him as he had visited several
and it never seemed to be a problem. He would encourage the existing
design to remain as it is. Lastly, he agrees that the meandering sidewalks
do not make sense on the interior of the project.
57. Chairman Abels stated he concurs with most of the comments made by the
Commission. The center parking he agrees with and the meandering
sidewalks would not make sense.
58. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-
047, recommending certification of the Environmental Impact Report
prepared for Specific Plan 97-029, Conditional Use Permit 97-034,
Tentative Parcel Map 28525, Site Development Permit 97-603, and
Development Agreement 97-002 with the recommended changes:
·
a. Under aesthetics: "1. Building heights...shall be limited to 25-feet
(delete one story), spacing between buildings shall be a minimum of
65 feet and staggered with a minimum setback of 50-feet." A
finding is thereby found that this will adequately mitigate any
viewshed concerns.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NO: Commissioner Woodard. Absent:
Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None.
59. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 97-048, recommending approval to the
City Council of Tentative Parcel Map 28525, subject to the findings and
conditions as modified by staff and requested by the applicant.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NO: None. ABSENT:
PC7-8-97 ~. ~, 40
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None.
60. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Seaton/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 97-049 recommending to the City Council
approval of Specific Plan 97-029, subject to the findings and conditions as
modified:
a. To Exhibit 17 add a nine dealership sign shall be allowed;
b. Add to Section 2.250.4.1.3. "General uses of public address/paging
system";
c. To Section 2.50.4.1.1 delete the word "and display";
d. Add to Condition//5, "no building-mounted sign shall be allowed
along Highway 111 and Adams street";
e. 'Add Condition //22, "building mounted and/or dealer/franchise
identification signs and split on one or more building face and
maintaining a minimum of 100 feet from Adams Street for Parcels
6&7; and
f. Clarify Condition #19, that the mitigation measure would be
amended to state that this is the best alternative to the view of the
mountains.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman
Abels. NO: Commissioner Woodard. ABSENT:
Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None.
61. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 97-050 recommending to the City Council
approval of Conditional Use Permit 97-934, subject to the findings and
conditions.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman
Abels. NO: Commissioner Woodard. ABSENT:
·
Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None.
62. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 97-051 recommending to the City Council
PC7-8-97 41
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
approval of' Site Development Permit 97-603, subject to the findings and
conditions.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and
· Chairman Abels. NO' None. ABSENT: Commissioner
Gardner. ABSTAIN' None.
63. It was moved and seconded by Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 97-052, recommending to the City Council approval of
Development Agreement 97-002.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and
Chairman Abels. NO: None. ABSENT: Commissioner
Gardner. ABSTAIN: None.
C. Zoning Code Amendment 97-056; a request of the City to prohibit independent used
vehicle sales, excluding new car sales with associated used car sales in the Regional
Commercial District.
1. Due to the lateness of the meeting, it was moved and seconded by Chairman
Abels and Commissioner Butler to continue this item to the Planning
Commission meeting of July 22, 1997.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:·
A. Site Development Permit 97-611; a request of Century Crowell Communities for
approval of new prototype single family house plans for Tract 27899.
1. Due to the lateness of the meeting, it was moved and seconded by Chairman
Abels and Commissioner Butler to continued this item to the Planning
Commission meeting of July 22, 1997.
2. Commissioner Tyler suggested the applicant reconsider his application in
regard to the number of garages for the number of bedrooms.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL' None.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 8, 1997
VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler reported on the City Council meeting of July 1, 1997.
Commissioner Tyler informed the Commission that he would not be in attendance
at the next City Council meeting.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting to be held on July 22,
1997, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. on July
9, 1997.
PC7-8-97 43