PCMIN 10 14 1997 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
October 14, 1997
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by
Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute.
B. Chairman Butler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Gardner,
Kirk, Seaton, -Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. ~
C. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attomey Dawn
Honeywell, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, and Executive Secretary
Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
A. Commissioner Tyler requested that the Minutes of July 3, 1997, be added to the
Agenda for approval as they were completed after the Agenda was posted and due
to their urgency to be approved.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of July 3, 1997.
Commissioner Tyler asked that the Minutes be amended on Page 9, Item #32 to read
"gun-carrying guards"; Page 11, Item #37 the last sentence to read, "...how can the
applicant be expected to have it under control...". There being no further corrections,
it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to approve the minutes
as corrected with Commissioners Kirk, Seaton, and Woodard abstaining.
B. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the minutes of September 23,
1997. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 4, Item 2 be corrected to state, "...he lives
at the comer of Viletta Drive and Viletta Drive and he did not see any problems."
There being no other changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
_ Abels/Seaton to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved.
PC10-14-97 1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
B. Chairman Butler asked if there was a Department Report. None.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-341, ZONE CHANGE 97-084. AND
TENTATIVE TRACT 28611; a request of Winchester Development for certification
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, and approval of a
tentative tract and zone change from Golf Course zone designation to Low Density
Residential designation, to reconfigure 21 existing residential lots into 32 residential
lots and create one residential lot.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Kirk asked if this request would change the total number of
dwelling units within the project. Staff stated it would add 12 new lots.
Commissioner Kirk asked why the lot sizes were being changed and when
would the perimeter wall come before the Commission. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated the applicant could answer the
questi6n as to why they were requesting the lot size changes. In regard to the
wall it had been approved previously and it was conditioned to be constructed
prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy being issued. Commissioner Kirk
asked if this portion of the project was within the Redevelopment Project
Area. Staff stated it was within Project Area No. 1.
3. Commissioner Gardner asked what affect the reconfiguration of the lots
within the tract would have on the mn-off water for the 100-year flood
protection plan. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it would have no impact
on the run-off as the lots to be divided had been graded and have existing
drainage patterns.
4. Commissioner Woodard asked if the additional units would have an affect on
the drainage plan. Staff stated it would be minor in comparison to the
amount of land within the project.
PC10-14-97 2
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
5. Commissioner Gardner stated he was confused due to the way it was stated
in the staff report. Community Development Department Director Jerry
Herman explained that the mn-off water would be mitigated to a point of
insignificance because the water will be handled by the lot configuration and
grading. The water will go to the retention basin/evacuation channel.
6. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to explain the size of the storage area of
the detention basin. Senior Engineer SteVe Speer stated that 520 acre feet
compared to a square section of land which is 640 acres and one foot deep,
would be equal to 640 acre feet. This makes it about 80% of a full section of
land. As you make the water deeper you decrease the amount of ponding.
7. Commissioner Gardner stated he was still concerned that there would be a
run-off problem. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that the drainage
detention basin that will hold the run-off water, was designed by Bechtel
Engineering of San Francisco. They were designed under the authority of the
Coachella Valley Water District, who is the flood control authority for the
County. The City has not altered those plans. They were reviewed by
CVWD prior to the grading to confirm that nothing had been done to degrade
the detention capacity that was built at the expense of the City.
8. Commissioner Gardner stated he recognized Bechtel Engineering and their
expertise as well as that of CVWD, but the ultimate authority who has to sign
off is the City and it therefore, puts the City in a position of being sued if it
is not built to retain the water.
9. Commissioner Abels stated he had no comment at this time.
10. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to identify the location of the lots to be
reconfigured. Staff showed the .lots on the plans. Commissioner Woodard
asked what the size was for the original lots. Staff stated they were 117 to
120 feet wide.
·
11. Commissioner Seaton asked staff to explain what liquefaction meant. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer stated it was when the land tums to quicksand. The
shaking of the earth causes the soil particles to become suspended in the
water and the heavy bodies on top start to sink in. Commissioner Seaton
noted a change on Page 48 of the staff report and asked that it be changed to
PC10-14-97 3
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
read, "Desert Community College District" which has two campuses. She
also asked if the parkland fees automatically go to the south end of the City
or can' they go to the north side of La Quinta. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman explained the money would go into the City's Quimby
Fund and can be used anywhere. There are two parks on the north side; one
five acres and one 18-acres. Discussion followed on the priority listing for
the parks that will be constructed.
12. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant wanted to address the Commission.
Mr. Mike Rowe, Winchester Development, stated they were the development
managers for the project and that the fence was being constructed at this time.
Avenida Bermudas will be completed within the next six weeks. This request
is to increase the number of lots by 11. They are configuring the lots as you
enter the project going to the west to be similar to those on the east. They are
going from a minimum size of 20,000 to 11,300 feet and reducing the lots to
a size that is more marketable. The market desire is for the smaller size lots.
In regard to the run-off water, during the recent rains, there was no water
retained on-site.
13. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant expected to request additional lots
in the future because of the market demand. Mr. Rowe stated they would like
to leave the option open to see what is desireable or marketable.
14. Commissioner Kirk asked staff what their response would be to the potential
changes and would the cummulative impacts be significant on the
environmental impacts that would create any future problems. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman explained that when the General Plan
was adopted in 1992, this site was anticipated to hold a maximum of 4 units
to the acre.
15. Commissioner Woodard stated they could come back with a plan for
townhouses and still be under the maximum allowable number. Allowable
density does not make it all right. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman clarified that it was not a question of right, but that the project had
been mitigated under the environmental review process. Commissioner
Woodard stated that the environmental issues originally evaluated by staff
assumed the project would be developed at 4 units per acre no matter what
actually happened. So the traffic increase for this small number of units will
have no affect. Staff stated that was correct.
PC10-14-97 4
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
16. Commissioner Gardner asked if any provisions had been made for public
access to the Hacienda del Gato. Mr. Rowe stated they would take each
request on an individual basis. As it was a private club, they could not allow
public access all the time. They are not closing it down to everybody; groups
will be allowed to have tours, but it will not be open to the general public.
17. There being no further public comment, the pubic hearing was closed and
open for Commission discussion.
18. Commissioner Tyler questioned Condition//5 of the Tentative Tract asking
staff if it should be deleted as the applicant had already completed the
grading. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated there ..will be minor re-grading
due try the lot reconfiguration. If a condition is redundant, they will not be
required to complete it.
19. Commissioner Tyler questioned Condition//10 regarding drainage. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer explained that the City had a Master Drainage Study
conducted in the mid 1980's. The plan was never adopted, but it has been a
guideline because it quantified the amount of water the City had to deal with
in this part of the Coachella Valley. Originally the plan called for the water
to be nm out into a ditch beside 52nd Avenue. In the course of preparing the
Tradition plan in February, they decided to take all the water that was to go
into the ditch and take it onto the site and eliminate the ditch on 52nd
Avenue. The easement referred to in Condition # 10, requires the applicant
to provide an easement between the lots and carry the water from 52nd
Avenue onto the golf course.
20. Commissioner Gardner asked if the water hole east of the present gate along
52nd Avenue would be eliminated. Staff stated it was a ditch that had not
been maintained in recent years. Most of the ditch that is next to the
Tradition project will go away. 150 feet of the ditch that goes into the
retention basin on KSL land will be left and piped to allow the creation of the
landscaped parkway and setback area.
21. Comissioner Seaton asked that the Condition//2 for the Tentative Tract be
corrected to read" .... City's approval of this project."
PC10-14-97 5
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Woodard/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
97-068 recommending the certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
of Env. ironmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 97-341, subject to
the attached Mitigated Monitoring Plan
ROLL CALL:AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAINING: None.
23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Abels to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 97-069 recommending approval of Zone
Change 97-084, as submitted. ~
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: Commissioner Gardner. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAINING: None.
24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Seaton to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 97-070 recommending approval of
Tentative Tract 28611, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval
as amended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: Commissioner Gardner. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAINING: None.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-344. SPECIFIC PLAN 97-030. SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-612, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-035;
a request of Thomas Bienek for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact, approval of a specific plan guidelines and standards, approval
of a site development permit application to allow construction of a 12,546 square
foot two story building with 80 tees for a golf driving range, and a 1,000 square foot
maintenance building, and approval of a conditional us permit for a lighted golf
range, at the northeast comer of Adams Street and 48th Avenue.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
PC10-14-97 6
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
2. Commissioner Tyler asked if the property to the east of this project, which is
planned for an affordable housing project, was contiguous with this project.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the project that the
City is currently having designed, is located at the northwest comer of
Jefferson Street and 48th Avenue. It is to be comprised of 48 single family
houses, and 101 senior rental units. The driving range is approximately one
half mile to the west of the City's project. Commissioner Tyler asked what
the land in-between the two was planned for. Staff stated this land was also
zoned Mixed Regional Commercial. The City's Redevelopment Agency
owned the 20-acres site and the 30 acres east of the affordable housing
project and it too was designated for an affordable homing project. There are
no design plans at the present.
3. Comrriissioner Seaton asked if the 195 parking spaces was sufficient.
Principal Planner Fred Baker stated they were sufficient and consistent with
the zoning requirements for a project of this size.
__ 4. Commissioner Woodard asked if the telephone poles along 48th Avenue
would be removed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the power poles on
the south side, adjacent to Rancho La Quinta, carry 92,000 kila volts (KV)
and cannot be placed undergroUnd. Anything under 12,000 kila volts (KV)
can be under grounded. None of those appear on the north side.
5. Commissioner Woodard stated that from a planning point of view, he did not
understand how the City can go from Low Density Residential to high
density/intensity commercial across the street. There should be a transition
between the two. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated
that 48th Avenue was a four lane Arterial with a median. It serves as a
transition from a country club environment, separated by an Arterial, to a
Regional Commercial zoning on the north. It was designated in 1985 as
Regional Commercial and was never changed. What was changed was to
allow residential on the north side, as an option on the southern half. Lake
La Quinta was originally designated as Mixed Regional Commercial and then
the zoning changed, when the ownership of Lake La Quinta changed, to Low
Density Residential, except for the piece along Washington Street, which
remained commercial. It was the property owner who requested the change.
PC10-14-97 7
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
6. Commissioner Woodard then asked how the property on Adams Street
changed. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it had been
zoned Mixed Regional since 1985. Commissioner Woodard stated he did not
believe this was good planning. Staff stated there has been residential
adjacent to commercial in numerous locations. Highway 111 is a Major
Arterial and there is residential next to it. It is an acceptable practice to have
single family residential development along a Major Arterial and to use
Major Arterials as a buffer. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated that in 1985
the City looked at oppommities to reduce the total amount of commercial in
the City, even along Highway 111. Commissioner Woodard stated he had no
problem with commercial, but the transition zone between the low density to
commercial. Community Development Director J~rry Herman stated that
Lake La Quinta when developed, had major commercial on Washington and
across a small collector street was a Low Density Residential zone with no
buffer.
7. Commissioner Woodard asked what the Commission was to approve on the
proposed Phase II future regional commercial site. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman clarified that whatever was to be developed would
have to go through a site development permit and come back to the
Commission for review and approval. Commissioner Woodard asked what
are they were approving for this site. Staff stated they were approving a
concept for a future office/retail use. Commissioner Woodard asked what the
height'limit was for this zone. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated it was Up
to 50 feet. Commissioner Woodard asked if they could condition the project
to be lower. Staff stated they had conditioned it to be reduced to 35-feet.
8. Commissioner Woodard asked if there were any drawings that showed a line
of site from across the street, if the building was built at 35-feet. Principal
Planner Fred Baker stated they did not because it was a part of Phase II.
Commissioner Woodard asked if the height could be changed at a later time.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated if the Commission
wanted to reduce the height of the building, they would need to include it in
the conditions for the Specific Plan. If the applicant wanted to change it in
the future, it could be addressed at that time by an amendment.
PC10-14-97 8
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
9. Commissioner Woodard asked about the south entrance into the office site
appears to be close to the entrance into Lake La Quinta. Has the Engineering
Department addressed this in regards to traffic to see that the left mm coming
out of the office site and the right turn coming out of the residential
development will not have a problem. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated
that Adams Street is going to have a median. Therefore, on the south
entrance into Phase II, none of the entrances matched up, so none of them
would have a full turning movement. Discussion followed regarding the
traffic circulation.
10. Commissioner Woodard stated that on the drainage concept, the drainage was
being taken from the office site and directed to the driving range; should the
driving range fail and the conditional use permit be removed, and if someone
wants to have office buildings, can they still put drainage off one parcel to the
next if the property is subdivided in the future? Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated that a condition, or easement, could be placed
on the property, in perpetuity, to see that it stays with the office building. The
Commission may want to consider this at a later time, after the configuration
is determined. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it would be appropriate to
add the condition at this time. The condition should read: "The owners of
the commercial property have an easement right to drain onto the adjacent
property or make sufficient arrangements with the City."
11. Commissioner Woodard asked if the color of the exterior surfaces was to be
a different color than shown. Staff stated that the applicant would make a
presentation which would clarify all the colors.
12. Commissioner Woodard asked if Exhibit 23B showed the sidewalk along the
entire length of Adams street and was there a height limit to hide the cars.
Principal Planner Fred Baker stated that a condition had been included to
require berming, but not to a height of three feet. Commissioner Woodard
asked that a condition be added requiring the berming to be three feet.
13. Commissioner Woodard asked if the trees shown on Exhibit 23D, on the side
properly lines, where there were extensions for the netting and wall, what size
trees are being required. Staff stated they would look it up.
PC10-14-97 9
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
14. Commissioner Woodard stated that the photometric light plan shows the
lighting is going to be thrown directly down onto the driving range and
therefore no vertical impact except the eastern property line where they have
an 8-12 candle foot. His problem is the blanket of light; even though it does
not come into his yard, the neighbor will see the light. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated the applicant had a lighting
consul.tant present to answer these questions. In regard to the property to the
east, it is owned by the City's Redevelopment Agency's and as the Agency
is selling the property, it would be taken into consideration when a project is
proposed.
15. Commissioner Woodard asked if the lights on the~ extension are shining
straight down, will the neighbors see the white light source. Staff stated the
applicant's consultant would answer this question.
16. Commissioner Gardner asked where the parking spaces for the driving range
in Phase I were indicated on the plans. Staff stated that on Exhibit 4 it
showed 195 parking spaces. Commissioner Gardner asked what the height
of the light standards were on the Sports Complex. Staff stated they were 80-
feet and 100-feet. Commissioner Gardner asked what the wattage was. Staff
stated they were flood lights, .but shielded and directed to stay on the ball
field. The City conducted a thorough redesign to help reduce the intensity on
the surrounding neighborhoods.
17. Commissioner Kirk asked if the environmental impact report indicated
whether or not there would be an impact on the transportation system. Or at
least showed it to be mitigatable. Did the City do any "back of the envelope"
or any other estimates regarding the number of trips to be generated by this
specific project. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they did not ask for a
traffic study. Commissioner Kirk asked if this project was under any type of
limitations that did not require such a study. Principal Planner Fred Baker
stated that an air quality study would generate the criteria to request a traffic
study. This size of a project does not meet the criteria to require the study.
Commissioner Kirk asked what the criteria was to determine a traffic study.
Staff stated it was determined by a formula, the square footage of the building
and number of employees anticipated. A formula determined by the certain
size and type of uses that have a list of indicators that would require a traffic
PC!0-14-97 10
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
study. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the
allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of this site is .35. Their proposal is .08.
The arterials were designed to accommodate the .35 which is more than what
the development proposes.
18. Commissioner Kirk asked if this prOject was to be built out at .35 FAR,
would it generate more or less trips. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated it
would create more trips due to the total number of square feet, but it depends
on the type of use. Each use generates more trips per square feet of building.
19. Commissioner Kirk stated that it is noted in the environmental assessment
that the light impacts could be mitigated and the proj .ect is striving to comply
with the Dark Sky requirements. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated that recreational facilities are exempt from the Dark Sky
Ordinance. However, they are trying to make it come into compliance due
to the concerns that have been raised.
20. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant would be able to discuss the
archaeological and historic objects found. Staff stated they had completed
a Phase I survey and will conduct a study for Phase II. A monitor will be on
site during grading of Phase II. The City cannot require this before any
grading is started.
21. Commissioner Kirk stated that when the public addresses the Commission,
he would like to hear what their expectations were for this property.
22. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Thomas Bienek, applicant, stated he would address the
Commission about the project, but would like to allow time for the
Commission to question the consultants he had brought with him. He was
very sensitive to the City of La Quinta's Dark Sky Ordinance. He moved to
La Quinta from Palm Desert and has been in the Coachella Valley for 24
years. He likes the Valley and has been a member of the PGA for 23 years
and associated with some very class facilities. When he and his wife decided
to build this practice driving range, it was their desire to have it be the best
known to man. The Coachella Valley has 80+ golf courses, and they want
The Pairings to be the best. They have come up with a "state of the art"
facility and lighting has been as much a concern to them as the City. It is
their desire to be good neighbors.
PC10-14-97 11
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
23. Commissioner Tyler asked Mr. Bienek to give an overview of the entire
project. Mr. Bienek stated there are three types of poles on the market; wood,
steel, and modular. Poles and netting are unsightly and they want them to
blend into the sky as best as possible. The practice putting facility will have
a golf school that will be open to the public. The street comer will have a
park-like setting. The two story building will have a restaurant, golf shop,
and other retail amenities with outdoor seating. They will be open 365 days
a yea~ with hours of operation 7:00 a.m. in the winter and 6:00 a.m. in
summer to be closed at 10:00 p.m. The restaurant will close at 11:00 p.m.
They will contract with a local security company for monitoring. All
entrances are to be gated and will be closed at midnight. One employee will
be working from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. who will be cleaning up and acting
as a night watchman.
24. Mr. Bienek introduced Mr. Steve Lee, LSR Architects in Portland, Oregon,
with a residence in Palm Desert. He stated he had originally started the
design to conform to all City zoning ordinances. In working with staff, they
had actually tried to meet the given conditons prior to coming before the
Commission. They have reduced the height of the office building and tried
to meet Dark Sky Ordinance. In terms of the height of the office building,
they had no firm plans. When staff asked that it be reduced to 35-feet, they
had no objections. They do not have any plans for the site and will wait to
see what the market will dictate. It could be an assisted living facility. Mr.
Lee went on to discuss the line of site and stated the facility was moved as far
as possible from Lake La Quinta. It is 380 feet away from the west boundary
line. On the south, the facilty is 250 feet to the north of the north right of
way line for Rancho La Quinta. The comer was designed as a garden setting
that will hide the cars, with a soft light on 25-foot high poles. The west and
south sides will be landscaped. Within the driving range, trees border on all
sides with water features with internal systems to handle the drainage. The
driving range is sunken in a bowl-like function in the center. The exterior
materials are cement plaster with the construction being concrete block, steel
beams, earth tones colors, and reveals to break up the plane of the building
and tie in the window and door headers. The roof will have a copper roof
with patina picked up on the fascia.
PC10-14-97 12
-- Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
25. Commissioner Tyler asked if the copper roof would take too long to patina
and blind others in the interim. Mr. Lee stated it would have an acid
treatment to patina it more rapidly.
26. Commissioner Woodard asked if there would be a public address system.
Mr. Bienek stated there would be no public address systems.
27. Commissioner Woodard asked if parking was allowed on Adams Street.
Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that the cross sectional plan for Adams
Street and 48th Avenue, calls for a bike lane which restricts parking.
28. Commissioner Woodard asked if landscaping would hide the maintenance
area. Mr. Lee stated it would. ~
29. Commissioner Woodard if it would be a hardship to reduce the height of the
office building to 28 feet. Mr. Lee stated he did not see any problem, but they
could not dictate what will happen in the future.
30. Commissiner Woodard asked what the purpose was for the video room. Mr.
Lee stated it was video golf that would allow customers to play on different
courses.
31. Commissioner Abels stated he thought the project had been well presented.
32. Commissioner Gardner asked why the building for Phase I could not be
reduced to 28-feet as well. Mr. Lee stated the major part of the facility, to the
top fascia, is 27-feet. The tower is 36-feet to take advantage of the view and
add light to the interior of the second floor.
33. Commissioner Tyler asked if the facility would have automated tees. Mr.
Bienek stated all 80 tees would be automated. The customers will never
touch the ball.
34. Commissioner Kirk appaulded the applicant on his specific plan.
35. Mr. Bienek introduced Mr. Robert DuPuy of Interface Engineering of
Milwaukee, Oregon, who stated that this project does comply with the Dark
Sky Ordinance as well as being in conformance with the Dark Sky
PCI0-14-97 13
Planning Commission Meeting _
October 14, 1997
requirements of the Intemational Dark Sky Ordinance Association. The
proposed lighting plan complies with both ordinances in all ways. There are
two small areas that show footcandles going over the property line; those
areas will be corrected. In regard to the question of what you see when you
look out at the range at night, the range is enclosed with netting that acts as
a diffuser and give an appearance of a fuzzy light. On the drawings the light
grey shading is where the light is and dark grey is where the light is not. Mr.
DuPuy pointed out that the proposed auto mall will have greater lighting
levels than this project.
36. Comrriissioner Woodard asked how the netting would diffuse the lighting.
Mr. DuPay stated that the light is diffused by all sort of objects and is
absorbed by the black netting the further away you arb. The light does not go
straight down, it is traveling at a forward angle.
37. Commissioner Woodard asked if the auto center lighting level was as high as
this. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated that according to the City's
ordinance they must be an average of one foot candle. He was asked if the
height of the light standards was higher or lower for the auto center. Staff
stated they were reduced in intensity the further away from the showrooms
you move.
38. Commissioner Woodard asked if the light standard was 400 feet in the air and
shines down, could it meet the Dark Sky Ordinance. Where does the height
come into play. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the
ordinance deals with shielding and keeping the light on the property. The
intensity can be increased, but the light must be on the subject property and
shielded.
39. Chain'nan Butler asked what the height was of the light standards on the
south standards on Exhibit 23. Mr. DuPuy stated the lighting at the netting
is 100-feet. Mr. Bienek stated the lighting behind the tee is 100 feet. Mr.
DuPuy stated the lighting at the nOrth end was 80 feet and shielded. Mr.
DuPuy stated that for this light to comform to the International Dark Sky
Ordinance it must be completely shielded. No light is going upward at all
and to ensure confinement, they have placed additional shielding on the
netting behind the lights in a 9-foot by 12-foot square to stop any back spill.
PC10-14-97 14
-- Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
40. Comissioner Kirk stated Exhibit 25-B showed an optional curve house-side
shield and asked which one was to be used on the netting. Mr. DuPuy stated
it would be the nine foot by 12 foot and it is possible for additional shielding
that could be curved. The shield that is on the netting is proposed to be
rectangular and is shown as possibly being curved. Their computer
computations are saying that the rectangle is working. Commissioner Kirk
asked if the curve was more affective. Mr. DuPuy stated their design was
based on the rectuangle. He went on to explain the lighting system.
41. Commissioner Kirk asked if the surface of the driving range would reflect
any light back upwards. Mr. DuPuy stated that it would to some degree, but
the surface is not a hard surface. Some bounce will come off the grass and
is accounted for in the analysis.
42. Commissioner Gardner asked why the poles and netting had to be 100 feet.
The balls would be hit from the upper level, why was the netting and poles
required t° be so high. Mr. DuPuy stated the physical limitations for the
lighting to throw the light out. They are using lower wattage than the
_ national average calls for. It does requires the height to get the distance. As
you lower the light it travels less of a distance. You have to have the height
to have the distance. Comissioner Gardner stated that golfer do not need to
see where the balls lands. Mr. DuPuy stated that in order to know how to
adjust your swing you have to see where you hit the ball.
43. Commissioner Tyler stated it was his understanding that on the perimeter the
poles serve a dual purpose; they hold the lights and netting. The only
freestanding lights are at the clubhouse. Mr. DuPuy stated that was correct.
44. Chairman Butler asked if the winds would impact the netting and cause a
problem with the poles. Mr. Bienek stated the poles are engineered to
withstand 70 mph winds.
45. Chairman Butler asked if the netting would bemalntained. Mr. B ienek stated
that if they appeared to be a nm down facility, they were not doing their job.
46. Chairman Butler asked if there were any other questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Tyler asked to hear from the landscaping consultant.
PC10-14-97 15
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
47. Mr. John Vogley, landscape architect, stated he would be happy to answer
any questions. Commisioner Woodard asked aboUt the size of the trees on
the east property line. Mr. Vogley stated they would plant as big a tree as Mr.
Bienek could afford. Nothing less than a 24-inch box. Exhibit 23A shows
the landscaping plan. Staff stated the calipher of the tree is not identifed on
the plan. They have conditioned the project to show the size. Mr. Vogley
stated the plan would come back to the Commission for review and approval.
48. Comissioner Woodard stated the condition should be changed to come back
to the Commission for final approval.
·
49. Commissioner Tyler asked that the sidewalk be me~'andering along the east
boundary as well as the other boundaries. He did not believe there should be
a meandering sidewalk on the east as there was not enough room. Mr.
Vogley stated that it would be a maintenance path only.
50. Chairman Butler stated that several letters had been received and asked for
public comment.
51. Mr. John Fleck, 48425 Via Solana, within Rancho La Quinta, stated he lived
one half mile from the development. He was attracted to the desert because
of the beauty and the housing developments. He was notified of this project
two or three days prior to the meeting from the Homeowners' Association.
His concem is the visual impact that this project will have. The height of the
poles that support the netting, the netting, the lights will be visible no matter
how filtered, dim, or bright they are. The hours of operation are a concern;
17 hours of operation. With 195 parking spots it is not designed to be a small
project. He is also concerned with what happens if this business does not
succeed. It is a single use complex that can only be used for a driving range
withou, t extensive modifications. Sounds like a well designed project, but it
needs to be moved to the Highway 111 commercial area. Why was this site
selected in view of the residential developments surrounding it. It is his
opinion that the project will negatively affect his property values. Had it been
built before he purchased, he would not have bought his home. It is well
designed, but in the wrong location.
PC10-14-97 16
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
52. Mr. Ralph Baggs, 78-705 Descanso Lane. stated he had learned of this project
a week or so before the meeting. He looked over the plans at City Hall and
initially found that the lighting would be a big problem. Lights 100 feet in
the ai/' are going to expose light to the surrounding communities. The
diffusion of the lights by the netting is true if you are looking to the east and
west, but not the south, where he lives. He was also concerned about the
noise. Eighty people hitting balls with metal clubs is going to create noise.
It is his opinion that his property values will be affected and he is opposed.
53. Mr. Tom Cullinan, Ranch La Quinta, representing TD Desert Development
and the HOA association. He sent each of the residents a letter informing
them of this meeting, but did not voice any opinion for or against the project.
A few years ago PacTel Cellular came to the City to'install a cellular antena
at the school site south of Rancho La Quinta. It was their desire to put up
poles 110 f~et in the air. It was the opinion of the City, at that time, that this
was not what La Quinta wanted. From that decision funds were put together
to mitigate the lights at the Sports Center. The City purchased this property
to develop low income housing and this is what was portrayed to their
residents. Catellus Housing will be developing the eastern portion of the
property at 48th Avenue and Jeffeson Street on a residential corridor.
Residential communities can exist on a Major Arterial. The project is a good
project, but planned for the wrong location. He would urge the Planning
Comrriission to vote "no" on the project in light of the extreme impact it will
have on the residents of Rancho La Quinta and Lake La Quinta.
54. Commissioner Woodard stated he understood the City had purchased the land
for low income housing. Communty Development Director Jerry Herman
stated the City's Redevelopment Agency purchased the 50 acres.
Commissioner Woodard asked Mr. Cullinan if he purchased his house
thinking that the City was going to build an affordable housing project on the
adjacent site. Mr. Cullinan stated that he did not live at Rancho la Quinta.
He was acting on behalf of the developer and HOA. When Rancho La Quinta
was purchased it was his understanding that the adjacent sites would be
residential. Even though low income housing is not the best development to
have next door, it is preferred to be a reasonable alternative.
55. Commissioner Tyler asked staff how long this property had been zoned as it
is. Staff stated since 1985 it had been designated as Regional Commercial.
Commissioner Tyler asked if the zoning changed as a result of the City
- purchasing the property. Staff stated that in 1985 it was designated as
PC10-14-97 17
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
Regional Commercial in the General Plan. The zoning was not consistent
with the designation. In 1992 during the updating of the General Plan this
site retained the Regional Commercial zoning, but added a high density
overlay. The Geneal Plan is the ultimate plan and any development that is
approved must be found to be consistent with the General Plan.
56. Mr. Tom Cullinan asked staff if the property to be developed by Catellus
Housing was zoned the same as the property at 48th Avenue and Adams
Street. Staff stated it was the same.
57. Commissioner Kirk asked Mr. Cullinan if it was his understanding that an
affordable housing project was a better use than this type of Regional
Commercial. Is this use a better use than any ~other higher intensity
commercial use that would create more impacts? Mr. Cullinan stated the
reason they did not oppose the auto mall was because they understand this
type of development would be on the Highway 111 Commercial Corridor.
Maybe it is not the best scenario, but it would benefit the comunity. It was
his assumption however, there would be a residential buffer between their
property and the Regional Commercial on Highway 111. Commissioner Kirk
asked what would be a better neighbor; this comercial use, affordable
housing, or a higher intensity commercial use? Mr. Cullinan stated obviously
a driving range is generally a timed delay of another use. Ultimately, these
developers have an out later on down the road. They are not sure that it will
be there in perpetuity. It would be better than a bad looking residential
development.
58. Mr. Ray Neufeld 48-205 Paseo Teimpo Lane, within Rancho La Quinta,
stated that if he had known this driving range was going to be built, he doubts
he would have bought his home. They did do some research as to what was
going on in this neighborhood before buying. He remembers reading the
publications about the purchase of this property by the Redevelopment
Agency and at that time it was stated it was for satisfying the low income
moderate housing needs of the City. He was surprised to see the
Redeveloment Agency intending to sell the land to this type of develoment.
People have expressed concerns about the night time lighting, especially to
the south, but also daytime visual impairment as you drive along Adams
Street. It is his understanding the standards will withstand winds up to 70
mph, but sometimes the winds may exceed this speed. He would be opposed
to the development.
PC10-14-97 18
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
59. Mr. Jim Brennwald, 48-070 Via Vallarta, stated that besides the lighting, he
was concerned that the restaurant owners would obtain a liquor license and
the amount of drinking that would occur.
60. Mr. John Boil, 48-600 Capistrano Way, stated he shares the concern
mentioned, but more specifically he is concerned about traffic. Washington
Street is a speedway. The golf range could bring additional traffic. If you go
to hit balls, you don't go for half a day, but half an hour and 80 tee times a
half an hour times 16 hours is a lot of traffic.
61. Mr. Tony Rushent 79-235 Rancho La Quinta Drive, stated he lives on the
main road that looks fight across at this development.and in his opinion, will
have an impact on him. He would not have bought his house if he had
known. They did not buy on the other side of the development because of the
school lights. The hours of operation will make noise and traffic. He would
prefer housing be developed at this location, but maybe an office that would
close at 6:00 p.m. would be best.
62. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public
hearing.
63. Commissioner Tyler stated he had heard a lot of "not in my back yard"
comments. He recalled that a number of people had stated they would not
have l:[ought on Sagebrush Avenue if they had known Rancho La Quinta was
going to expand. We all live in the city and there is a give and take as
progress goes on whether we like it or not. The purpose of this meeting is to
determine if the project meets all the requirements of the City. Personally,
he thanked the applicant for his patience in bringing this development to the
City. He then asked how many entrances are to be allowed on Adams Street.
The site plan shows three. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated there were
two on Adams entrances under this Site Development Permit. The middle
entrance will not be constructed until Phase II.
64. Commissioner Tyler asked if under Section 330.1 of the grading plan, if
80,000 yards of dirt was to be removed. Staff stated that was correct.
Commissioner Tyler questioned Section 360.5.2 regarding noise where it
stated no noise would be generated during the day. This needs to be deleted.
Section 360.5.3 regarding scheduled events, needs to be tied into the noise
section to maintain the same hours and operation requirements. Section
360.5.2 needs to have the condition added regarding the prohibition of a
PC10-14-97 - 19
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
public address system. Section 370.3 talks about public transportation and
he asked if bus turnouts were to be constructed. Staff stated they were not
planned for because bus service was not provided for on these streets.
Commissioner Tyler asked if Exhibit 24-A showed a monument sign to be
used at the comer and at the main entrance off 48 Avenue. He was confused
as to where the sign would be placed. Staff stated the applicant would have
to apply for an amendment to the site development permit to do the ancillary
functions other than what is shown at this time. Commissioner Tyler stated
the text and exhibits do not agree with each other.
65. Commissioner Tyler asked if the applicant intended to have satellite dishes
and if so, where. Mr. Lee stated the satellite dishes wguld be screened as they
will be in the east maintenance yard and will be the 'smaller dish size.
66. Comn/.issioner Tyler commented that in the staff report the 80-foot high light
fixtures are conditioned to be lowered to 25-feet. On Page 5 of the site plan,
the last sentence is garbelled which makes it confusing as to what is going to
happen. Page 71, Condition #5 should refer to Section 330.1 which is the
grading plan and not Section 330.2. In Condition #7, the word "netting"
should be removed. Staff clarified that there were lights on the tower netting
that light the practice putting area which are at 25-feet. Page 76, Condition
#3, delete the first word "provide". Need to fix where Dune Palms Road
appears and should not. On Page 83, Commissioner Tyler questioned
Condition #38 as to whether or not it gave the applicant the option of making
the entrances left turn in and if he wanted to modify the center medians.
Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that was true, he could modify the center
median to create a left turn in, but not out. He cannot create a full turn
intersection.
67. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 86 be changed to reflect the correct area
code for the Fire Department. Page 90, Condition .#4, the last sentence
should be clarified to read, "the height of the towers shall not exceed 110
feet".
·
68. Commissioner Seaton stated she had concerns. She complimented the
developer for the work, but believes it is not a suitable use for the area nor is
it compatible with the neighbors. It does not come close to the theme for La
Quinta.
PC10-14-97 20
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
69. Commissioner Woodard asked the applicant if there would be a liquor
license. Mr. Bienek stated it would be for beer and wine only.
Commissioner Woodard asked if a condition could be added which would not
allow alcohol. Commissioner Tyler challenged this and asked why we would
deny him what ever country club in the area has. Staff stated a condition
could be added to deal with beer and wine sales.
70. Commissioner Woodard stated he liked the design of the building, the land
planning is wonderful, and the comer landscaping treatment is beautiful, but
he has a problem with the lighting. A line of site drawing is needed from
Rancho La Quinta over 48th Avenue, over past the proposed buildings, to
show the height of the light standards. The elevations have the two standards
drawn in front of the building which are shown on Exhibit 25 to be 100 feet
high. Commissioner Woodard asked why they were needed at this location.
The neighbors can see the light source whether or not it is shining on them.
71. Commissioner Kirk commented that if you look at Exhibit 26, the site section
looking west shows 48~ Avenue in sections, the Commons Building, and the
light standards. Commissioner Woodard stated the homes across from the
project will see the light source at 100-feet.
72. Commissioner Woodard asked why the poles were needed to show where the
ball is traveling? He noted that the lower lights, that would light the levels,
would be sufficient. Mr. Lee explained the purpose in having the lights at
this height was to allow the patron to judge what he is doing. Discussion
follou/ed regarding the light source.
73. Cormnissioner Woodard stated he would like to continue this project to allow
the applicant time to remove the four lights and show that the property
owners at Rancho La Quinta will not see the light source. He then asked the
applicant why the four poles were so high. Mr. Bienek stated that initially
their thought was to have three behind the tee, poles similar to those at
College of the Desert, shining out and bunker lights the rest of the way. This
plan would not conform to the Dark Sky Ordinance. In order to conform with
the Ordinance, they designed the lights high and shining down. In this
program, the only lights you see are in the cube area, midway down the
driving range. Discussion followed regarding the lighting.
PC10-14-97 21
·
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
74. Commissioner Kirk stated that on this issue of lighting, the 100 foot pole
facing directly opposite Rancho La Quinta is not a significant lighting impact,
maybe an aesthetic impact to have a 100-foot pole in your viewshed. The
option in this plan is to extend the 11 O-foot poles the entire length of the
project all the way to the Commons Building. Rather than having the 110,
100-foot, 80-foot, 60-foot, or 40-foot, you could have one more 110 foot
pole, stick a light very close to the Commons Building, extending the light
all along. You would have a higher viewshed impact, and the light instead
of being 180-degrees from Rancho La Quinta, it would be 90-degrees. This
may be a more significant impact. So as proposed, this lighting plan may be
even better than the alternative. Commissioner Woodard stated he did not
think this would work according to what the app!icant had stated. The
applicant stated that after many studies on the computer, the Dark Sky
Ordinance is causing more lights to do the same job due to the shielding
requirements. Altematives were discussed between the Commission and the
applicant.
·
75. Mr. Dupuy asked if the Dark Sky Ordinance could be waived so they could
lower the light standards so the source could not be seen. The light source
could be lowered and directed away from the residential commtmity.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Commission
could create the standards in the Specific Plan. If the Planning Commission
wanted to change the requirements, those changes could be added to the
Specific Plan.
76. Commissioner Abels complimented the applicant and staff on their
presentation. He concurred with Commissioner Tyler about the comments
regarding "Not in my back yard." This project will be an asset to La Quinta
and will not detract from property values. It is setback far enough away from
Rancho La Quinta, that it will not be a detriment to them.
77. Commissioner Gardner stated he too thought it was a very well-designed
project. He lives close to the Sports Complex and even with the adjustment
to the lights, he can still read a newspaper at' 10:00 p.m.. Based on that he
could not vote yes.
·
78. Commissioner Kirk stated he too commended the applicant on a fine job and
extended his compliments to developer. He, however, did not hear the public
comments as "not in my back yard" as he shares some of their concerns. He
appreciates the concems raised by Commissioner Woodard, but the applicant
PC10-14-97 22
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
has done all that he can to conform, and respond to the integrity of the Dark
Sky Ordinance and the result is the high poles. He would be concerned if the
Commission tried to relax their stand on the Dark Sky Ordinance. He does
not believe that reducing the poles and sending the leakage out into the sky
is a benefit. The photometric analysis-pictures of the proposed lighting plan
do not show any leakage. Any changes in the lighting scene would result in
his negative vote. He is generally happy with the project as presented.
·
79. Chairman Butler stated he too was concerned about the lighting as well as the
impact of the lighting on the surrounding neighborhood. Rather than taking
a vote at this time, maybe the Commission should continuing the project and
allow the developer time to look at lighting alternatives.
80. Commissioner Tyler stated he too agreed with Commissioner Woodard to
continuing the project and suggested the applicant obtain a line of site exhibit
showing the impact on the adjacent communities. The poles used by the
Sports Complex were three or four feet in diameter at the base and this aspect
was not even discussed at this meeting
81. Mr. DuPuy stated he shared Commissioner Kirk's concern about deviating
from the Dark Sky requirements. This leaves them caught in the middle. If
the Commission wants to look at different studies, can they have the
flexibility to work with the requirements of the Dark Sky and could they have
an understanding as to why the Dark Sky Ordinance is being pushed.
82. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Comm. issioners Tyler/Gardner to continue Environmental Assessment 97-
344, Specific Plan 97-030, Site Development Permit 97-612, and Conditional
Use Permit 97-035 to the Planning Commission meeting of October 28, 1997,
to allow the applicant an opportunity to review the lighting and line of site
information in regards to the lighting, poles, and netting concerns.
83. Chairman Butler asked that the Commission be shown the previous lighting
plan as well.
84. Commissioner Woodard asked why the poles could not be arranged
differently to meet the Dark Sky Ordinance and the surrounding neighbors
concerns.
PC10-14-97 23
Planning Commission Meeting _
October 14, 1997
·
85. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that if the
Commission is proposing to continue the project, staff will take the
comments made at this meeting, along with the requested condition changes,
and bring it back to the Commission. The applicant will be asked to bring
back the three prior lighting plans, and address the 100-foot poles, the four
poles in front, along with all three elevations with the support poles.
Chairman Butler asked that the structure of the support poles holding the
netting be included in the report.
86. Community Development Director Jerry Herman summed up the areas the
Commission was concerned with: the two story build'rog being reduced to 28-
feet for Phase II; three foot berming and landscaping to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission as well as the sign program; the four poles in front of
the building; the line of site from Rancho La Quinta and Lake La Quinta; and
the items as noted by Commissioner Tyler. Principal Planner Fred Baker
asked that the drainage issue between the properties also be addressed.
87. Comniissioner Abels stated that he did not believe it was fair to judge this
lighting program against the Sports Complex lighting.
88. Following the comments, the vote was taken. The motion passed with
Commissioner Seaton voting no.
89. Commissioner Kirk recommended the applicant look into the Mt. Palomar
Lighting Ordinance to see what was put into their ordinance.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler informed the Commission that an existing home on Forbes
Circle with adding a second story and in his opinion it had "0" compatibility. The
Zoning Code required no review for compatibility. If the Commission is going to be
reviewing the Code, this needs to be added. Staff stated that a review of the Zoning
Code was tentatively scheduled for the Planning Commission meting of October 28,
1997.
PC10-14-97 24
·
-- Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1997
B. Commissioner Gardner asked staff how many used cars were allowed on the Used
Car Lot. Staff stated that to date they had not complied with the conditions and staff
will be talking with the City Attorney to determine what the next course of action
should be.
C. Commissioner Woodard asked how the landscaping for Home Depot was
progressing. Staff stated they were working with the Home Depot to resolve the
issues and would give a report at the next meeting.
D. Commissioner Abels congratulated Commissioner Tyler on being appointed to the
Airport Commission. In addition, he would be absent at the October 28, 1997
Planning Commission meeting. :,
E. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of October 7, 1997.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to be held on October 28, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission
was adjourned at 10:18 p.m. on October 14, 1997.
PCI0-14-97 25