Loading...
1997 10 28 PC2 u�l'�tiG�o O PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA An Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quints City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California October 28, 1997 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 97-071 Beginning Minute Motion 97-013 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the October 14, 1997 Minutes B. Department Report PC/AGENDA PF V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................. CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-344 SPECIFIC PLAN 97-030 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-612 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-035 Applicant .......... Thomas Bienek Location ........... Northeast corner of Adams Street and 48`h Avenue Request ............ Recommendation for Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, approval of a Specific Plan for development guidelines of a 21 acre site, Site Development Permit to allow construction of a 12,546 square foot two-story building with an 80-tee golf driving range, and approval of a Conditional Use Permit for lighting of the driving range. Action ............. Request to continue VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................ PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS Applicant .......... City of La Quinta Location ........... City-wide Request ............ Review of proposed changes to the Zoning Code Action ............. None B. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 96-590 Applicant .......... Lapis Energy Organization, Inc. (Mr. John Gabbard) Location ........... Southeast corner of Dune Palms Road and Highway 111 Request ............ Approval of final landscaping plans Action ............. Minute Motion 97- VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIIL COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Discussion regarding the landscaping at Home Depot. IX. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGEI%MA Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 at the corner 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. 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 question 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 run-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. PC I 0-14 -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 run-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 a 640 acre 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 Becktel 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 Becktel Engineering and their expertise as well as that of CVWD, but the ultimately 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 of the original lots was. Staff stated they were 117 to 120 feet wide. 11. Commissioner Seaton asked staff to explain what liquidfaction meant. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it was when the land turns 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 PC 10-14-97 3 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 noted a change on Page 48 of the staff report and asked that it be changed to read, "Desert Community College Disrict" 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 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. PC 10-14-97 4 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 16. Commissioner Gardner asked if any provisions had been made for public access to the Hacienda del Gata. 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 publc 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 to the lot reconfiguration. If a condition is a 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 run 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 52"d 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." PC 10-14-97 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 Environmental 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 corner of Adams Street and 48`' Avenue. 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. PC 10-14-97 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 corner 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 housing project. There are no design plans at the present. 3. Commissioner 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. PC 10-14-97 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 opportunities 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 Jerry 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 heigh 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 Power. 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. PC 10-14-97 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 turn 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 property lines, where there were extensions for the netting and wall, what size trees are being required. Staff stated they would look it up. PC 10-14-97 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 consultant 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 10-14-97 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 project 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. PC 10-14-97 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 corner 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 year 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 vyill 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 corner 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. PC 10-14-97 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 coursos. 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 comformance with the Dark Sky PC 10- ] 4-97 13 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 requirements of the International 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. Commissioner Woodard asked how the netting would diffuse the lighting. Mr. D,uPay stated that the light is diffused by all sort of objects and is absorbed by the black netting the further away you are. 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. Chairman 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. PC 10-14-97 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 rectangle 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 to 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 bemaintained. Mr. Bienek stated that if they appeared to be a run 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. PC 10-14-97 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 meandering 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, 48-425 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 concern 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 without extensive modifications. Sounds like a well designed project, but it needs to be moved to the Highway I I I 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. PC 10-14-97 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 air 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 feet 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 Commission 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 PC 10-14-97 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 I I I 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 drivng 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 perpeturity. 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. PC 10-14-97 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 right 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 bought 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 PC 10-14�-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 corner 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 would be screened as they will be in the east maintenance yard and will be the smaller dish size. 66. Commissioner 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. PC 10-14 -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 corner landscaping treatment is beautiful, but he has a problem with the lighting. A line of site drawing is needed from Rancho La Quints 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`h 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. Why are the poles needed to show where the ball is traveling? Lower lights that would light the levels, would e 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 followed regarding the light source. 72. Commissioner 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. 73. 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 PC 10-14-97 21 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 option in this plan is to extend the 110-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 applicant had stated. The applicant stated that after many studies on the computer, the dark sky is causing more lights to do the same job due to the shielding requirements. Alternatives were discussed between the Commission and the applicant. 74. 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 community. 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. 75. 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. 76. 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. 77. 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 concerns raised by Commissioner Woodard, but the applicant 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 PC 10-14--97 22 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 not believe that reducing the poles and sending the leakage out into the sky is a benefit. The photo 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. 78. 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. 79. 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 80. 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. 81. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners 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. 82. Chairman Butler asked that the Commission be shown the previous lighting plan as well. 83. Commissioner Woodard asked why the poles could not be arranged differently to meet the Dark Sky Ordinance and the surrounding neighbors concerns. 84. 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, PC 10-14-97 23 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 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. 85. Community Development Director Jerry Herman summed up the areas the Commission was concerned with: the two story building 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. 86. Commissioner Abels stated that he did not believe it was fair to judge this lighting program against the Sports Complex lighting. 87. Following the comments, the vote was taken. The motion passed with Commissioner Seaton voting no. 88. 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. 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. PC 1 o-14-97 24 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1997 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. PC 10-14-97 25 B I #A DATE: CASE NO.: INITIATED BY: REQUEST: BACKGROUND: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OCTOBER 28, 1997 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 97-058 CITY OF LA QUINTA REVIEW OF MISCELLANEOUS ZONING AMENDMENTS General CODE The current Zoning Code was adopted in September, 1996. After one year of using the Code, additions and amendments are necessary. Following are the major amendments being recommended for preliminary review. A copy of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code discussed as numbers #1-7 is attached at the end of the report:. Revisions Staff is drafting development standards for recreational vehicle resort parks. Following are major items and their page number that are being considered for revision: 1. RVL (Very Low Density Residential District) - increasing minimum residence size from 1,400 to 2,000 square feet. (Page 30-2) 2. RC (Cove Residential District) - adding restriction against excessive pad fill, clarification of allowable exterior building materials, and clarification that walls in :side and rear yards shall be no less than 5 feet, nor more than 6 feet high. Adding requirement that where there is a combined retaining and garden wall and the retaining wall portion exceeds three feet in height, the garden wall portion shall not exceed five feet in height (Page 30-4). p:\stan\pc ss rpt zca 97-058 3. Swimming pool filter and heating equipment - revising allowable location, i.e. specifically, allowing it in the rear or front yard (if properly screened). (Page 60- 7) 4. Employee housing - Deleting "Cooking facilities" from the definition of employee housing to coincide with guest house requirements since employee housing falls under it. (Pages 60-1 1 and 280-9) 5. Compatibility review - Including second story additions (with new fee) in review and adding building mass and scale as design criteria for compatibility review. (Pages 60-38 and 60-40) 6. Screening of parking areas - adding requirement that parking lot screening adjacent to street consist of three foot high earth berms when landscape area is 20 feet or more in depth. (Page 150-28) 7. Use of landscape setbacks for water retention - adding restriction against extensive use of landscape setbacks next to streets for retention of project storm water, except for retention of street storm water. This restriction should be the same as that recently adopted for Highway 111. (Pages 60-23 and 100- 4) Other items the Planning Commission need to discuss are as follows: 1. Outdoor vendors (Page 100-10), and produce stands (Page 100-9), in nonresidential zones (attachment 1). These are commercial uses that compete with established commercial businesses. For example, the Home Depot hot dog cart vs. a fast food restaurant or a produce stand vs. a supermarket, etc. 2. Visibility at intersections (Pages 60-2 and 100-2). This requirement is to ensure that walls or landscaping do not block visibility at corners and next to driveways. In most cases, due to adequate parkway widths there is no need for it. For Cove corner lots, it decreases usable front yard area. 3. Additional architectural standards for residential development. 4. Incorporation of additional tree size specifications, such as caliper size. The Building Industry Association (BIA) has requested the three car garage requirement for four bedroom residences be rescinded with the builder and market dictating when three car garages are provided (Page 150-7). They state their research indicates no other locail cities require a three car garage for four bedroom residences. Additionally, the B'IA requests the restriction against pedestrian gates in sideyards exceeding 48 p:\stan\pc ss rpt zca 97-058 inches in width, except for sideyards of at least 12 feet, be deleted because wider gates are sometimes necessary for equipment access to the rearyard (Page 60-3) (Attachment 2). A letter has been received from Mr. J. Art Valdez, a resident of the city, requesting an increase in the allowable encroachment of awnings, eaves, and other similar shading devises into front, rear, and exterior sideyards (attachment 3). Presently, a maximum two foot encroachment into any required setback is permitted provided a minimum 3- 1/2 feet from any property line is maintained. Mr. Valdez suggest the encroachment be increased to six feet with minimum 3 feet setback from property line maintained to allow porch type structures. He further suggest bay windows be allowed to encroach three feet into a setback, with limitation, rather than two feet with 3-1/2 feet setback from property line maintained. With the proposed Zoning Code amendments, changes to fees, and new categories of fees will be presented at the time of the Public Hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Review Zoning Code amendments as noted above and provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Letters from Mr. John Craig and Mr. Michael Shovlin 2. Letter from Building Industry Association 3. Letter from Mr. J. Art Valdez Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Plinning Manager pAstan\pc ss rpt zca 97-058 J0396 0 Medi a BERRY -MORE C t. Mur etta, Ca. 9 56RIES ATTACHMENT ^ctober22, 1997 ��- Jerry Herman P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Director Herman: Hello. My name is John Craig and my family and I have a number of straw- berry stands in west Riverside county. Last year we started our 1st stand in this area (on Washington Blvd. in Palm Desert). Despite a host of problems, poor visability and no advertising, it proved very popular, doing much better than expected. Approximately 20 % of our customers were from La Quinta and another :30-40DA from cities other than Palm Desert. (per mailing list) We would like to establish a location in La Quinta this year but have been unable to locate any Coachella Valley growers. We do not grow our own berries and the most important criteria, by far, in our selection of a grower is the quality of his berries. We always pay a premium price to insure that we get ";stand" grade berries* but this price is fairly standard, fixed at a certain :rate above current wholesale prices. Actually, we would prefer a good, local grower not only because of the significant reduction in transport- ation coasts but because their crop would probably be less affected by the 'El Nino'. We are therefore requesting a change in city ordinance 9.100.100 regarding temporary use permits for fresh produce and flower stands. I applaud the commission's wisdom in making truly fresh produce more readily available to the community and I am sure the provision allowing for Coachella Valley grown is just ,as wise. I am not aware of what those particular reasons are, however, and therefore I'm not exactly sure of how to direct my request. Hopefully, it was never the commission's intention to exclude those fresh produce items from sale in La Quinta that are not being (or cannot be) grown in the valley. On the following page I have provided three possible approaches. With your knowledge of the needs of the city and your concern for it's future, perhaps you may know of a better one. Any information, advise or suggestions you may be able to give me concerning this matter would be groatly appreciated. I will try to contact you sometime before the Oct. 28th meeting. Thank You very much for your time and attention. Sincerely,. 7 John R. Craig *Stand grade refers to the cream of each day's crop. They are fully vine ripened and should be sold the day they are picked. They are usually reserved for the farmers own stands. These are my three suggestions. Hopefully they will not interfere with the intentions of the commission but only serve to enhance them. 1. Wording of existing ordiance be amended to allow sale of fresh produce from outside the Coachella Valley, provided that type of produce is not grown in the valley. 2. Same as in No. 1 above but with the additional proviso that it be sold in conjunction with an item that is grown in the valley. 3. Limit the outside vendor to a single, fresh item. No. 3 probably needs a little explanation. Farmers often sell a single item at their fields because the costs are incidental to t:heLr main business, growing. Remote (away from the field) have a number of additional costs and therefore almost always rely on a large variety of items to make them economically feasible. A vendor, selling a single item from outside the area, would have substantially greater handling and transportation costs and find it virtually impossible to compete with a vendor selling a similar item that was locally grown. Should you have any questions or suggestions please feel free to contact me at the following; Business: 909 679 2671 Residence: 909 679 4931 Pager: 888 420 2310 Michael J. Shoviin OIA'NER 714084 Tamarisk Lane Rancho Mirane, CA 92270 October 13, 1997 Christine DiIorio Community Development City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La. Quinta, CA 92253 Re: 111 La Quinta Center Dear Christine; Washington/Adams L.L.C. Telephone - Fax 760-321-2831 0 C T 2 1997 1 C'Tl QF PLANNI N& DEP;� MVEN'T It :is my understanding that on October 28th, the Planning Commission will hold a meeting to review and consider possible ordinance changes regarding Solicitation Permits and Temporary Use Permits issued by the City. As Managing Member of the ownership of the 111 La Quinta Shopping Center, I want to officially voice a concern pertaining to the issuance and use of Solicitation Permits currently on file with the City. Specific non profit and other organizations are currently utilizing private and public properties in the City for what is considered to be a "temporary" use situation for the purpose of conducting car washes and or garage sales for the generation of funds for their organization. These car washes and sales are being held quite frequently, sometimes even weekly. I do not believe that the Temporary Use Permit or Solicitation Permit Policies of the City intended this frequent utilization of priviledge to the potential detriment of other "tax" paying tenants and property owners, and as such, this situation needs to be stopped. I hope that this agenda item will receive its proper analysis and that these two permits will be changed to disallow the frequent users and abuses of Temporary Use and Solicitation Permits in and about the City. Sincerely, A604-1 Michael J. Shovlin Managing Member ATTACHMENT 2 July 18, 1997 JtJL'�' A197 Ms. Christine di lorio, Planning Manager City of La Quinta P. O. Box 1504 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta., CA 92253 Re: Request to Consider Zoning Ordinance Revisions Parking Requirements for Single -Family Dwellings Dear Christine: drik Desert Chapte liuildinu Iutln try \.moo, is nF �uutltrrn C"lititrniu .i6.1 Country Club Ur Suite 40013 Palm Ursert. Culifornii ,60.300.2176 fax 760.; 2.33;? The Building Industry Association appreciates the many hours of review that went into the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance for the City. We note that the City has already undertaken several revisions to adjust the Ordinance to make it work better for the community. We have had some experience now with the new Ordinance and would like to request one additional modification in the area of parking requirements for single-family residences of four or more bedrooms. We have reviewed the zoning ordinance provisions of all of the other jurisdictions in the valley and find that all other Cities (and Riverside County) have ordinances requiring two spaces per dwelling; mostly covered. None have requirements based on bedrooms except La Quinta. We request that the Zoning Ordinance be revised to eliminate the requirement for a third parking space for homes with three or more bedrooms. Our justification is as follows: • The City has already made an adjustment to eliminate this requirement for lots of 6,000 s.f. or less and where affordable homes are involved. • The City allows the conversion of the third space into other living facilities by the owner (if the value of the home is not increased by 50% or more). • Providing three -car garages should be market driven. If the customers want this, they will demand it and builders can appropriately respond. • All other jurisdictions in the Valley currently require parking for only two cars. The current practice of designing new homes with a convertible or "bonus" room is the most efficient and logical approach to this issue. This allows the owner to get exactly what he deems as the best usage of the home. Our experience with the new home market is that builders must respond to the %u Affiliate of the National Association of Home Builders and the California Building Industry .%woriatU11 July 18, 1997 City of La Quinta Page 2 market or go out of business. If the market shifts to demand, more or anything, it is certainly in our interest to provide it. This is not the case with the extra garage space as it hasn't been a frequent request of our La Quinta buyers. We thank. you for the attention that the City has given to the Building Industry Association's review of the Zorung Ordinance. We hope we can continue to work together on this issue and create a fair and reasonable resolution to this provision. Please call us if you have any questions or if we may be of any assistance to you. Very truly yours, BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION DESERT CHAPTER Michael Marix President JUL-1'7-097 18:16 FROM TO 7=72 P . 03 9,150: AAA"IVG 1: G FOR'RESIDENT)EA AND USES;���,... Land Use Min. Offstreet Par dng Requirement -: Re ufirements:> `:� Single family detached, single 2 spaces per unit in a garage plus .5 A bedroom means any family attached and duplexes, guest spaces per unit if no on -street habitable room that may be three bedrooms or less. parking is available used for sleeping purposes other than a kitchen, bathroom, hallway, dining room, or living room. Mim driveway length shall conform to Sec. 9.60.060. Above homes with four or more Same as above but with 3 spaces per Same as above. bedrooms including guest unit in a garage. For additions raising houses. total 9 of b/rms to a or more, third garage space is not required provided addition does not increase value of house by 50% or more as determined by Director of Building and Safety. Existing Iots of 6,000 sq. ft. or less and affordable housing, this requirement is optional Employee quarters One covered or uncovered space. The space shall not be tandem. T'ownhornes 2 spaces per unit in a garage plus .8 All units shall be within 100 guest spaces per unit A. of the nearest guest space. A parking plan will be required as part of develop- ment review showing alloca- tion of guest spaces. All guest spaces shall be restrict-ed to the use 9±MLests onl . a 150-7 TOTAL P.03 J . ART VALDEZ 51-980 AVENIDA NAVARRO LA QUINTA, CA 92253 (760) 564-0994 Mr. Jerry Herman Director of Community Development City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Re: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Dear Mr. Herman: °vc s c x ATTACHMENT 3 S t P 2 4 1997 I-A',-4J I TA � RAN ;:�:7IPARTkti;EIN' T .` Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the upcoming review of the zoning ordinance text. I would suggest that the ordinance allow for certain types of architectural features to encroach into required setbacks. PROJECTIONS INTO YARDS Architectural projects including eaves, awnings, louvers, and similar shading devices; sills, belt courses, cornices, and similar features; and flues and chimneys may project not more than six feet into a required front yard, rear yard, or side yard on the street side of a corner lot, and not more than two feet into any other required yard; provided, that the distance between an architectural projection and a side or rear property line shall not be less than three feet. Oriel or bay windows may project not more than three feet into a required front yard, rear yard, or side yard on the street side of a corner lot; provided, that the aggregate width of oriel or bay windows shall not exceed 50 percent of the length of the wall in which they are located and the width of any individual oriel or bay window shall not exceed ten feet. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly NJ 1 2 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE Page 30-2 - Section 9 30 020 RVL Very Low Density Residential District a. Development Standards. Min. Lot Size . . Min. Lot Frontage Max,. Structure Height ............................ Max. No. of Stories .............................. Min. Front Yard Setback .......................... Min. Interior/Exterior Side Yard Setbacks ............ Min. Rear Yard Setback ........................... Max. Lot Coverage .............................. Min. Livable Floor Area Excluding Garage ........... Min. Landscape Setbacks Adjacent to Perimeter Street . . Page 30-4 - Section 9.30.040 20,000 sq/ft 100 ft. 28 ft. 2 30 ft. 10/20 ft. 30 ft. 30% 4400 2000 sq/ft 10' min. at any point, 20' min. average over entire frontage D. Stucco and Tile Required. In addition to the requirements of this Chapter and Chapter 9.60 (Supplemental Residential Regulations), the following materials shall be required on homes built within the RC District: 1. Exterior walls shall be stueee cement plaster and may be accented with stone, brick, wood, or other similar materials. 2. Sloping roofs on new homes shall be constructed of clay or concrete tile. Replacement of existing roofs shall also require the use of clay or concrete tile unless the Director determines that the roof support structure will not support such materials. Building additions and accessory structures may have roofs of the same or similar materials as the existing home. E. Fencing. Rear and side yards shall be completely enclosed and screened by view obscuring fencing, walls or combination. The wall shall be no less than five feet nor higher than six feet per standards found in Section 9.60.030. F. Building Development Standards. In addition to the requirements of this Chapter and Chapter 9.150 (Supplemental Residential Regulations), the following standards shall be required on homes built within the RC District; 1. Bedroom dimensions: a minimum of ten -foot clear width and depth dimensions, as measured from the interior walls of the room. 2. Bathrooms: there shall not be less than one and one-half baths in one- or two -bedroom dwellings, and not less than one and three-quarters baths in dwellings with three or more bedrooms. G. ]Earth fill shall not exceed what is necessary to provide minimum required drainage to the street. H. Where there is a combined retaining and garden wall, and the retaining wall exceeds three feet, the garden wall shall not exceed five feet in height. ]?awe 60-7 - Section 9.60.070 SwimmingPools. ools. A. .Applicability. The provisions of this Section shall apply to any outdoor swimming pool, whirlpool, spa (in -ground or above -ground), or open tank or pond containing or normally capable of containing water to a depth of �et 18 inches or more at any point. For purposes of this Section, the term "pool" means all or any of the foregoing facilities. B. Standards. Pools are permitted as accessory uses in residential districts subject to the following requirements: .Location. Pools shall be located at least three feet (measured from water's edge) from any property lin . No adjustment to these minimums shall be approved with the exception of private gated communities, pools may be located up to the property line if adjacent to common open area. 2. .Filter and Heating Equipment. Mechanical pool equipment, such as a pump, filter or heater, shall be located within the required rear and/or front yard setbacks and shall ;not be located in the interior side yard setback no titan ten feet From the bttildable unless such equipment is ,placed within a building, underground vault, or other enclosure. The Director shall determines if this provides effective noise and vibration attenuation. T e Dire..t.... may -Rtt-frotn any property line. In addition, equipment shall be screened from ground view of surrounding properties. Such visual screening may consist of perimeter walls or fencing (if permitted), screen walls, or landscape planting. 4. Pa e 60-11 - 9.60. 100 Guest Houses/Employee Quarters. A. Purpose. This Section provides standards and criteria for the establishment of guest houses/employee quarters where such units are permitted in accordance with Section 9.40.040. B. Definitions. For purposes of this Code, the following definitions shall apply: 1. "Guest house/employee quarters" shall mean a detached unit which has sleeping and sanitary facilities but no cooking facilities and which is used primarily for sleeping purposes by members of the family occupying the main building, their non- paying guests, and domestic employees. 2. "Living area" means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics (if permitted) and shall not include a garage or any accessory structure. C. Limitations. On lots of ten acres or larger, one or more guest houses may be constructed. On lots smaller than ten acres, only one second residential unit or one guest house may be established on any lox in addition to the primary residence. Thus, on lots smaller than ten acres, a guest house/employee quarters may not be added to a lot containing a second dwelling unit, or vice -versa. D. Standards for Guest Houses/Employee Quarters. A guest house/employee quarters may be constructed as an accessory use in the RVL or RL Districts subject to approval of a minor use permit. All guest houses/employee quarters shall conform to the following standards: 1. Detached guest houses/employee quarters shall conform to all applicable Building Code standards and all development and design standards of the zoning district in which they are located. In addition, the height of the guest house shall not exceed 17 feet and shall not be more than one story. 2. Guest houses/employee quarters shall be architecturally compatible with the main unit. 3. The floor area of the guest house/employee quarters shall not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area of the principal residence. 4. The placement of a guest house/employee quarters on a lot shall not result in violation of the lot coverage maximums set forth in Section 9.50.030. 5, There shall be no kitchen or cooking facilities within a guest house/employee quarters. 6. A guest house/employee quarters shall be used only by the occupants of the main residence, their non-paying guests, or domestic employees. The guest house/employee quarters shall not be rented or otherwise occupied separately from the main residence. 7. A deed restriction shall be required for recordation against the property to prohibit the use or conversion of the guest house/employee quarters to a rental unit, to a unit for sale, or to add a kitchen or cooking facility. 8. If a private sewage disposal system is used, approval of the local health officer shall be required. 5. Paize 280-9 - Definitions. Employee's quarters means quarters, with or without cooking facilities, for the housing of domestic employees and located upon the same building site occupied by their employer. 6. Paee 60-38 & 40- Section 9 60 300 Compatibility Review for Partially -Developed Subdivisions. A. Purpose. Residential subdivisions are often developed in phases -- either by the same or differentdevelopers or by individual owner -builders. This Section imposes requirements to ensure that units in later phases of such projects are compatible in design and appearance with those already constructed. 13. Definition. For purposes of this Section, the term "compatible" shall mean residential buildings which are similar in floor and lot area and harmonious in architectural style, materials, colors, and overall appearance. C. Applicability. This Section applies to all second story additions and new residential units which are different from those originally constructed and/or approved and which are proposed for construction within a partially developed subdivision, except for a custom home subdivision, project or phase. These requirements are in addition to other applicable regulations in this Code. D. Site Development Permit Required. Residential units subject to this Section are subject to approval of a site development permit by the Planning Commission per Section 9.210.010. Applications for such permits shall be filed with the Community Development Department on forms prescribed by the Director together with: (1) all maps, plans, documents and other materials required by the Director, and (2) all required fees per Chapter 9.260. The Director shall provide the necessary forms plus written filing instructions specifying all materials and fees required to any requesting person at no charge. E. Acceptance of Applications as Complete. Within 30 days of receipt of a permit application, the Director shall determine whether the application is complete and shall transmit such detennination to the applicant. If the application is determined not to be complete, the Director shall specify in writing those parts of the application which are incomplete and shall indicate the manner in which they can be made complete. No application shall be processed until all required materials have been submitted and the application deemed complete. F. Public Hearing Required. A public hearing shall be noticed and held per Section 9.200.110 prior to Planning Commission approval or denial of any site development permit consisting of four or more units under the compatibility review provisions of this Section. Four or less units and second story additions shall require review and approval of the Planning Commission as a Business Item. The Community Development Director may require that additional notice be given by enlarging the notification radius or by other means determined by the Director. (Revised 4/97) G. Precise Development Plan. A site development permit approved under the compatibility review provisions of this Section constitutes a precise development plan. Therefore, the residential development authorized under the site development shall be in compliance; with the plans, specifications, and conditions of approval shown on and/or attached to the approved permit. ]H. Required Findings. In addition to the findings required for approval of a site development permit, the following findings shall be made by the decision -making authority prior to the approval of any site development permit under the compatibility review provisions of this Section: 1. The development standards of Paragraph I. of this Section have been satisfied. 2. The architectural and other design elements of the new residential unit(s) will be compatible with and not detrimental to other existing units in the project. I. Development Standards for Compatibility Review. No residential unit shall be approved under compatibility review unless the Planning Commission determines that it complies with the following development standards: 1, A two-story house shall not be constructed adjacent to or abutting a lot line of an existing single -story home constructed in a prior phase of the same subdivision unless proof can be provided showing that a two-story unit was proposed for the lot by the prior builder. 2. If lot fencing has been provided in the subdivision, the new developer shall provide the same or better type of fencing for the new dwelling, as determined by the Planning Commission, including any perimeter subdivision fencing. 3. Proposed single-family dwellings shall be compatible to existing dwellings in the project or to dwellings which are approved for construction as shown on the plans and materials board, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission, with respect to the following design elements: a. Architectural material such as roof material, window treatment and garage door style; b. Colors; c. Roof lines; d. Lot area; and e. Building massing and scale 7. Page 150-28 - Section 150.080.L.2. 2. Height. Screening shall be a minimum of three feet high adjacent to public streets or nonresidential uses and a minimum of six feet high adjacent to residential uses, except that screening shall not exceed 30 inches high where required for motorist sight distances as specified in Section 9.100.030. Adjacent to parkways or landscape setbacks of 20 feet or more, a minimum of three foot high screening shall consist of earth berms. This height restriction shall not apply in the VT Tampico Urban Mix District. ]?age 60-23 - Section 9.60.240.F. and Page 100-4 - Section 9.100.040.C. Landscape Setback Area Restriction. F. (& Q Landscape Setback Area Restriction. The landscape setback area shall not be used for storm water retention for storm water falling on the project site, but may be used for some storm water retention for storm water falling within the setback area itself and the adjacent street right of way provided the retention areas are designed to the following guidelines: 1. The maximum depth of the depressed areas for storm water retention shall not exceed 2.0 feet below the adjacent street curb. 2. The depressed area to mounding comparison ratio shall not exceed a 3:1 ratio (three units of depression capacity to one unit of mounded earth volume) where mounding an depression are relative to the adjacent curb. 3. The maximum slope for at least 50% of the perimeter of a depressed area shall not exceed a steepness of 8:1 (8 horizontal units to one vertical unit). 4. The maximum slope for up to 50% of the perimeter of a depressed area shall not exceed a steepness ratio of 3:1 (3 horizontal units to one vertical unit). 5. The sidewalk shall not enter any retention area where the sidewalk may be subject to inundation by any 50-year storm. STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 28, 1997 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 96-590 - FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST: APPROVAL OF FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS PROPOSED BY LAPIS ENERGY. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DUNE PALMS ROAD AND HIGHWAY 1 1 1 (SEE ATTACHMENT 1) APPLICANT: LAPIS ENERGY ORGANIZATION, INC. (MR. JOHN GABBARD) PROPERTY OWNER: LAPIS ENERGY ORGANIZATION, INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: RON GREGORY ASSOCIATES, INC. BA KGR )UND: On February 4, 1997, the La Quinta City Council approved Site Development Permit 96-590, one of four applications filed by the applicant for the referenced site. This approval was granted based on Conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission on January 10, 1997. Approvals were also granted for a Specific Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map. On April 8, 1997, the Planning Commission approved minor modifications to Parcel 1 of the Site Development Permit, which contains the Lapis fueling station, convenience store and restaurant uses. Those modifications involved relocating the separate CNG pumps to the main fueling pump island, deleting the CNG canopy, and rotating the main pump island and canopy 90 degrees. An 800 square -foot equipment building was also moved to a location 10 feet away from the east property line, across from the main canopy on the west. PRO POSA—L—. The applicant has prepared a landscape plan for Planning Commission review in accordance with Conditions 48 and 53 of the approval conditions (large scale and reduced copies have been included with your packet due to the detail involved). The plans are in conformance with City requirements, such as the recently adopted Highway 111 Design Theme document. The plan submitted does not address internal areas for Parcel 3 (self -storage), as this parcel is in escrow and no longer part of CAcorel\perpt\lapscape. wpd Lapis' design work. Parcel 3 is being revised by the new owner as part of an amendment to the specific plan and site development permit. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Issue #1 -• Condition Compliance The landscape plan satisfies the provisions of the related project approval conditions. A shading plan has been submitted to show a minimum 50% coverage of the total parking area, which refers to coverage of actual parking spaces, at a 15- year canopy. The plan's shading provisions show that 48 of the 74 spaces on Parcels 1 and 2 (65%) will be at least partially shaded. California Pepper trees were originally required by condition to be incorporated with the Highway 111 parkway/setback design. However, this was changed due to the Highway 111 Design Theme adoption. The landscaped setback area has been designed in accordance with this document. Wall details are not shown as none are proposed. Screening of the parking areas will be accomplished through the use of landscaped berms/mounds. The planting plan shows cross -sectional views of Dune Palms Road and Highway 111 through the respective landscape/retention areas. It should be noted that this project will be the last to be permitted to use parkway/landscape setback areas along Highway 111 for stormwater retention purposes. The future east -west access has been landscaped on an interim level (turf only), while the northerly side (south side of retail building on Parcel 2) is fully landscaped. In accordance with Condition 80, a pedestrian access route between Parcel 1 (service station) and Parcel 2 (retail automotive) has been established. This will be a concrete finish where it traverses landscaping and a striped crossing at paved locations. Width and color/treatment were not specified by the applicant. The route is acceptable but should be relocated in some places to avoid routing pedestrians behind or through parking spaces (refer to Attachment 2). Issue #2 - Highway 111 Design Theme The landscape plan is consistent with the intent of the Highway 111 Design Theme, which was adopted by City Council on September 16, 1997, in terms of plant materials and locations. The sidewalk along Highway 111 is shown at 6 feet rather than the 8 feet in the Design Theme, and returns to back of curb at several locations instead of meandering without touching the curb (see Attachment 3, plan view from the Design Theme document). This requires that the specified materials be located in areas behind, or south, of the sidewalk. However, due to the approval conditions being in effect prior to adoption of the document and considering the use of the parkway areas as retention, the configuration as shown is acceptable. It may be possible to locate some of the red yucca into the areas between the curb and sidewalk, with the purple/yellow lantana. C:\core:l\perpt\lapscape.wpd • The concrete mowstrip dimension is shown as 4" x 6"; the Design Theme requires a 4" x 8" standard which will be incorporated into final construction plans. Issue #3 - External Authority Approvals The City routinely requires that landscape plans be approved by CVWD and the County Agricultural Commissioner. In this case, the plans were sent to these agencies by the City. CVWD has approved the plan contingent on approval by the City, but will not release the water and sewer plans for the project until City approval is granted. the County Agricultural Commissioner requires a letter from the applicant stating from where the proposed Meyer Lemon trees will be sourced. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Minute Motion 97- approving the landscape and shading plans for Site Development Permit 96-590, as proposed, with the following changes to be confirmed by staff: 1. Revise the plan to avoid routing pedestrians behind or through parking spaces, as noted on Attachment 2. Width and color/finish of the concrete walks shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 2. All concrete mowstrip/curbs shall be 4" deep x 8" wide color -conditioned concrete by L. M. Schofield, as required in the Highway 111 Design Theme. 3. Applicant shall provide a copy of approvals from CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office along with the above required revisions. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, ''Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Proposed Pedestrian Circulation - suggested revisions 3. Highway 1 1 1 Design Theme - Sheet L-1, plan view of sidewalk configuration C:\corel\perpt\lapscape. wpd SP 96-028; CUP 96-02! SOP 96-590; EA 9 -321 TPM 28422 HawAY t i t J 4erx AW. LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT #° 1 LOCATION MAP •.v.�.vv. �4_�r vv•iVq,� Am ;2416 fin;. • % vVe = �w-A 10,�. A ram, tyO� l- Ilml�qj; , v-d NOLIVA3'13 / Nou936 a �W! VW J PH #A MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF DATE: OCTOBER 28, 1997 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN 97-030, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-612, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-344 - APPLICANT REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE Attached is a letter received from Mr. Thomas Bienek requesting that "The Pairings" project be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 12,1997. This request is to allow their consultants time to prepare additional light studies and line of sight drawings for both the Lake La Quinta development and Rancho La Quinta. OCT 2 1997 THE PAIRINGS OF I A QUINTA 80-840 Vista Bonita Trail LA QUINTA, CA 92253 MR. J:ERRY HERMAN OCTOBER 21, 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY OF LA QUINTA 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINT.A, CALIFORNIA 92253 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 97-030), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP) 97-612, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 97-344. DEAR MR. HERMAN, I AM REQUESTING THE CONTINUANCE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR THE PAIRINGS BE MOVED FROM OCTOBER 28TH AGENDA TO NOVEMBER 12, 1997 AGENDA. THIS WILL GIVE OUR CONSULTANTS ADEQUATE TIME TO PREPARE ADDITIONAL LIGHT STUDIES, AND PROVIDE A LINE OF SIGHT DRAWING FOR BOTH LAKE LA QUINTA AND RANCHO LA QUINTA. THANK YOU. YOURS VERY TRULY, THOMAS L. BIENEK PRINCIPAL cc: FRED M. BAKER AICP PRINCIPAL PLANNER Louis A. Fisher. Jr. 48-178 Paso Tientpo Lane OPT<' a 1��7 La Quinta. California :�22SJ October 21, 1978 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: The Pairings Driving Range Dear Planning Commission: As registered voters in the City of La Quinta and as residents in the Rancho La Quinta community, we wish to express our objections to the proposed commercial enterprise referenced above: (1) We do not feel that it is correct to extend the commercial corridor of Hwy 111 south to Avenue 48 whereby creating two different zonings, that are diametrically opposed to each other - heavy commercial across the street, enveloped by quite and established residential communities. (2) We object to the very nature of this commercial project in this specific site. If this land has to be developed commercially, why not a more typical project such as office building, etc. that adhere to normal 9 to 5 business hours with registered tenants. We do not see this type of proposed development in any of the most commercial sections of the Valley's cities - why here. Any enterprise that requires a very large number of 100 foot lighting poles in order to operate, that requires 18 hours of daily operating hours, that serves beer and wine surrounded by video games, that could potentially attract 1300 cars with visitors on a daily basis and with the potential of acting more like an amusement park in order to generate revenues; is totally intrusive to La Quinta's residential communities. This is not why we recently moved to La Quinta. In consideration of the good and well being of all La Quinta.'s residents and visitors who moved here, visit here, and live here because of the quite residential image portrayed by the City of La Quinta, we implore you not to recommend approval of this development to the City Council. Respectfully, Louis A. i er, Jr. Beverly Fisher r�✓G -" lJ rr �/ ! =-�� L � -� ��� ����, A i �� � 5 � 74t � j Y W. nn CQ L C` 1 `97 - ---- -- --) -_- / City of La Quinta - Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Mr. Stewart Woodward Dear Mr. Woodward, I am riot normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near my home in Southern California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have been projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking at is across the street from a residential development. The long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could even get this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly pro -development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would still find this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must not be zoned properly and I hope that the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this project because it is not suited to this area. Sincerely, - Neill E. Anderson ANDERSON-BARROWS METALS CORPORATION 2800 ANDERSON AVENUE PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA 93550 (805) 272-4600 0 (800) $28.1300 0 FAX(805) 272-4649 7 y _ 7117 City of La Quinta - Planning Commission "T8-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Mr. Robert Tyler Dear Mr. Tyler, I am not normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near nay home in Southern California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have been projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking at is across the street from a residential development. The long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could even get this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly pro -development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would still find this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must not be zoned properly and I hope that the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this project because it is not suited to this area. Sincerely, Neill I:. Anderson ANDERSON-BARROWS METALS CORPORATION 2800 ANDERSON AVENUE PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA 93550 (805) 272-4600 • (800) 826.1300 • FAX(805) 272-4649 7 City of La Quinta - Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Ms. B.J. Seaton Dear Ms. Seaton, I am not normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near my home in Southern California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have been projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking at is across the street from a residential development. The :long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could even get this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving -range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly pro -development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would still fold this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must not be zoned properly and I hope that the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this project because it is not suited to this area. Sincerely, CE. Anderson ANDERSON-BARROWS METALS CORPORATION 2800 ANDERSON AVENUE PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA 93550 (805) 272-4600 0 (800) 828-1300 0 FAX(805) 272-4649 OCT 4, .t 1997 l City of La Quinta - Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Mr. Tom Kirk Dear Mr. Kirk, I am riot normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near my home in Southern California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have been projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking at is across the street from a residential development. The long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could even get this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly pro -development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would still find this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must not be zoned properly and I hope that the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this project because it is not suited to this area. Sincerely, Neill E. Anderson ANDERSON-BARROWS METALS CORPORATION 2800 ANDERSON AVENUE PALM®ALE, CALIFORNIA 93550 (805) 272-4600 0 (800) 828-1300 0 FAX(805) 272-4649 7 OFT :7 City of La Quinta - Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Mr. Jacques Abels Dear .Mr. Abels, I am riot normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near my home in Southern California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have been projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking at is across the street from a residential development. The long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could even get this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly pro -development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would still find this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must not be zoned properly and I hope that the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this project because it is not suited to this area. i:ncerely, . Neill E. Anderson ANDERSON-BARROWS METALS CORPORATION 2800 ANDERSON AVENUE PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA 93550 (805) 272-4600 a (800) 828-1300 0 FAX(805) 272-4649 City of La Quinta - Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Mr. Wayne Gardner Dear Mr. Gardner, I am not normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near my home in Southern California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have been projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking at is across the street from a residential development. The long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could even get this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly pro -development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would still find this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must riot be zoned properly and I hope that the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this project because it is not suited to this area. Sincerely, y/_&e_ , Neill E. Anderson ANDERSON-BARROWS METALS CORPORATION 2800 ANDERSON AVENUE PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA 93550 (805) 272-4600 0 (800) 828-4300 0 FAX(805) 272-4649 MARY SEWELL 261 MONTCLAIR ROAD LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 95030 10/21 /97 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Cale Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Gentlemen: fic..T 1 1997 We have just heard of the plan before you to develop an 80-tee night -lighted golf driving range, restaurant, and retail building along Adams St. and Avenue 481 1 can't believe it! We bought our cassita at Rancho La Quinta just this last spring after looking at various properties from Palm Springs on down. The moment we saw Rancho La Quinta and the surrounding area, the nice town, the mountains, the tranquillity, etc. etc., we knew immediately where we wanted to be. Looking out on those beautiful tall palm trees, the desert, and those intriguing black mountains was perfect. Now this plan, lighting on stanchions up to 110' tali with black fabric netting, a video arcade, and more, so close to our cassita, a most different view! We are crushed. Please do not recommend approval of this plan. There certainly must be more appropriate areas for a project such as this than in a quiet residential area. We are sorry that we cannot come to the meeting as we will still be in Los Gatos, but are looking forward to coming down in the near future. We hope you will give this plan some very serious thought and agree that the planned area is wrong, wrong, wrong. Sincerely, Mary S. Sewell THE WESTON•WESTPORT AGENCIES, INC. REAL ESTATE AND APPRAISALS WESTON SHOPPING CENTER, WESTON, CT 06883 TEL: (203) 227-5191 (OFFICE) FAX: (203) 227-5193 October 21, 1997 City of La Quints. Planning Commission 7EI-495 Cal l e Tampico La Quinta, CA. 92253 Re: Thomas Bienek application Gentlemen: It is unconceivable to me - a former Selectman and a member of numerous boards in our town of Weston over the past forty years - that dr. Bienek' s proposed commercial development is even being discussed. He obviously has no regard for the neighborhood or the fact that his complex would devalue the homes of all in the area. If Mr. Bienek cannot be refused because of a zoning violation ... then your zoning laws need to be corrected immediately. We, in Weston, instituted two acre zoning back in 1953... and greatly restricted commercial development.... so much so -that there has been none since. I urge.your commission to reject his application and encourage him to locate on Route 11.1 where his type of operation belongs. Si AeeT-ei , I Jame T. Hog; 4_, 0 via Sofa a La Quinta, CA. 92253 4- 1997 OCT 2 -�' cc T.Cullinan r R.Baggs Atty P. Hover �.� I"vx Ll T 2. Or, 2 -11997 Robert J. Kohler 48-180 via Solana La Quinta, CA 92253 IICT S 9 7 City of La Quinta Planning Commission October, 24 1997 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 To Whom it May Concern, I wish to voice my opposition to the driving range complex proposed for development adjacent to Rancho La Quinta. We bought our home in Rancho La Quinta after careful consideration of many alternatives in many other desert cities. Not only is La Quinta still a nice place to live, but Rancho La Quinta holds the promise of being one of the premier developments in the desert. The combination of a very nice environment, pleasant surroundings and the quiet atmosphere are something that La Quinta should try and preserve for communities such as Rancho La Quinta. The economic well being of the people who buy in Rancho La Quinta should be the kind of tax payers the local government should want to attract. I encourage you not to give us, a reason to want to move by the approval of the proposed driving range. Your consideration of the homeowners views is greatly appreciated. Robert: J. Kohler N. Dexter Williams Jr. Karen Williams 48-135 Via Vallarta La Quinta, CA 92253 21 October 1997 �c T ''_ 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 C:alle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Planning Commission; As residents of La Quinta we are writing with regard to the proposed development of a lighted driving range and retail building on Avenue 48. This proposed development is in complete contrast to the primarily residential nature of the surrounding area. Would you wish your home to be awash in artificial lighting during the evening, much less until 11 PM? Would you wish heavy auto traffic and the accompanying noise to fill your home during the day and until 11 PM. Would you welcome the unsightliness of 10 story tall light stanchions and the requisite black fabric hung from equally imposing poles along the length of this facility? The question we ask, if this proposed facility had already existed would it have negatively affected our decision to purchase our current home? The answer is obviously yes and therefore defines this development as an intrusive land use. This proposed facility will not only have a detrimental impact on property values but more importantly on the quality of life and the environment that attracted our family to La Quinta. We are not anti -growth fanatics but we find the proposed use of this land completely inappropriate and in opposition to the residential, small retail feel of the area. We strongly urge you not to recommend approval of this development to the City Council. Please vote no on this development. Thank you for your consideration of this correspondence. Sincerely, Nt N. Dexter Williams Jr. Kare Williams rm"iIO E (760) 771-2135 ELLIS M. YARNELL 48-235 VIA VALLARTA LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 October 21, 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78A495 Calle Tampico La Quintz� CA 92253 0CT 2 1 1997 As a La Quinta homeowner I object to the proposed night -lighted driving range and related commercial buildings at the corner of Adams Street and Avenue 48. The project is inappropriate immediately adjoining residential communities. It should be permitted only :in industrial or major commercial areas well removed from residences. As described, by day it will present an ugly facade of fabric netting to the public and to the neighborhood. The most offensive feature will be the glaring night lighting for the driving range. Most communities in western Coachella Valley require and take pride in subdued lighting that permits enjoyment of the beauty and tranquility of desert nights —one of the characteristics that make such communities attractive. I hope La Quinta city officials consider La Quinta a community of that caliber. The Commission should recommend against this plan. If the project is permitted at all, the city should impose an absolute requirement that all floodlighting be directed entirely away from residential areas and the light sources be shielded to prevent direct radiation beyond the boundaries of the project. Yours truly, John M Sewell 261 Montclair Road Los Gatos, CA 95030 ober 20, 1997 y of La Quinta Planning Commission 495 Calle Tampico Quinta, CA 92253 r Members of the Planning Commission: ■ ■ OCT ? 1997 etter notifying me of Thomas Bienek's plan to create a monster, noisy, ht-illuminated golf driving range within a stone's throw of my newly chased residence at Rancho La Quinta is causing me great distress. did you choose a date for the public hearing that is clearly well in ance of the arrival of many of the seasonal residents? And why, in an a with much vacant land, must a driving range be located adjacent to a drawer residential development? m appalled that the Commission would even consider such a project, much s, apparently, consider it seriously. this project: were to be approved I should be obliged to sell my idence, undoubtedly at a substantial loss since no one in their right d would buy into such a disaster, and move to an area where the planning more wisely and considerately executed. ASE discharge your responsibility in this matter wisely, with careful sideration of rights of the citizens of La Quinta and the residents of cho La Quinta. y truly yours, n M. Sewell 055 Via Vall.arta Quinta, CA 92253 � 1997 OCT 2 October 21, 1997 La Quinta Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE.: Proposed Driving Range Development at the corner of Adams Street and Avenue 48, City of La Quinta Dear h4embers of the Commission: I am a full time resident of Rancho La Quinta. The above proposed development has recently come to my attention. As a real estate developer I am generally pro development. However, I find the proposed driving range to be inconsistent with the immediate area. Three of four corners at the intersection of Adams and Avenue 48 are currently developed with high quality single family developments (Rancho La Quinta being on two). While I strongly feel the proposed development is a negative to the surrounding area, it is hard to believe the proposed lighting would even be considered by the Commission. The proposed development would have a strong negative impact on hundreds of homeowners in the area, many of whom have not arrived for the season and hence are unaware of the proposed plan. The desert nights would never be the same in the area if this proposals was approved. I thank: you for taking your time to eview my comments. Sincen cu', L63 William Bloodgood Diane Bloodgood 79105 Via San Clara La Quinta, CA 92253 STONERIDGE REALTY & INVESTMENT, INC. 68-625 PEREz RD. SUITE 11 CATHEDRAL CITY, CA 92234 (760) 321-5957 0 (760) 328-8095 FAX THE PAIRINGS OF LA QUINTA 80-840 Vista Bonita Trail LA QUINTA, CA 92253 MR. JERRY HERMAN OCTOBER 21, 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITS. OF LA QUINTA 78-9:95 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 97-030), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP) 97-612, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 97-344. DEAF: MR. HERMAN, I AM REQUESTING THE CONTINUANCE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR THE PAIRINGS BE MOVED FROM OCTOBER 28TH AGENDA TO NOVEMBE:R 12, 1997 AGENDA. THIS: WELL GIVE OUR CONSULTANTS ADEQUATE TIME TO PREPARE ADDITIONAL LIGHT STUDIES, AND PROVIDE A LINE OF SIGHT DRAWING FOR BOTH LAKE LA QUINTA AND RANCHO LA QUINTA. THANK YOU. YOURS VERY TRULY, THOMAS L. BIENEK PRINCIPAL 11997 c c : FR:ED M . BAKER AI CP PRINCIPAL PLANNER OCT ? 1997 } City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 1 understand that you have before you an application from Thomas Bienek to develop a 80-tee night -lighted golf driving range and two story 13,536 sq.ft. restaurant/retail building located at Adams Street and Avenue 48. I have invested several thousand dollars in by home at Ranch La Quinta and pay a lot of taxes to the City of La Quinta. This type of development being proposed would only decrease the value of property of all the homes in the area. The heavy vehicle traffic in the area cannot be good for the future of La Quinta. The 110' tall light poles, along with the black fabric netting being hung on these poles, is this what the Planning commission wants for the city, I THINK NOT. Your responsibility as the Planning commission is to look at the development and ask yourself if this is good for the future of La Quinta or will the city just be another Cathedral City???? You cannot allow this type of development to be built in a high dollar residential area. Do your job and tell Mr. Bienek that we do not want this type of high traffic, ugly development in a residential area. DAVE C FT 48-185 P o Tiempo Lane La Quinta, CA 92253 RODr7te I .I October 21, 1997 Mr. Richard Butler Chairman City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Butler. I am writing you with regard to the proposed plan to develop an 80 tee night lighted golf driving drive and two story retail building adjacent to the Rancho La Quinta Country Club. I want to voice my strongest objection to this type of development being situated immediately adjoining the Rancho La Quinta perimeter. The combination of night lighting, traffic noise, and activity which typically accompanies an establishment which serves alcohol and has a video arcade is profoundly inconsistent my lifestyle and those of my neighbors who live in Rancho La Quinta. Mr. Butler, I have made a very substantial investment in the City of La Quinta and its merchants because I see this community as valuing a tranquil and serene desert lifestyle. A development such as the one proposed at Adams Street and Avenue 48 is incompatible with the fine qualities which have drawn me and my family to this community. I strongly urge you as the Chairman of the Planning Commission to reject this proposal and preserve the qualities which make La Quinta such a desirable community. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, did D. W. n.D. ❖ 19-MO Yid SI aid •:® Id oft a 9153 October 21, 1997 City of La Quinta - Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Lear Planning Commission, OCT 2 4 1997 4 , 1 am not normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near my home in Southern California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have been projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking_ at is across the street from a residential development. The long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could even get this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself_ at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly pro -development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. ]Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would stall find this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must not be zoned properly and I hope that the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this project because it is not suited to this area. Sincerely,, / Neill E. Anderson October 21, 1997 City of La Quinta - Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Planning Commission, OCT 2 4 1997 :AT . I am not normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near my home in Southern California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have been projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and" was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the: project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking, at is across the street from a residential development. The; long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could even get this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting;, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly pro -development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would still find this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must not be zoned properly and I hope that the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this project because it is not suited to this area. Sincerely,, / Neill E. Anderson 17 City of La Quinta - Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Mfr. Richard Butler Dear JW. Butler, CC r 2 1997 I am not normally one of those who would write a letter objecting to the development of a project. I normally feel that development is a positive thing for the community and it's residents, and have worked diligently for development of similar projects to this one near my home in Southern California. The operative word in the above paragraph is projects "near" my home. The projects which I have supported have been projects in properly zoned areas and have been non - intrusive to the country lifestyle in which I presently live. The golf course development and lighted driving range which I supported was in no way intrusive to any homeowners and was in property which was suited to this purpose. This couldn't be more different than the project you are now looking at. The project you are now looking at is across the street from a residential development. The long hours of lighting, noise and additional traffic will adversely affect the homeowners at Rancho La Quinta, of which I am one. As a matter of fact, my home is nearly across the street from where this project will take place and I find it hard to believe that a project like this could even get this far with your Commission. In addition to the lighting, noise, and traffic problems, the fact that a driving range must put up ugly and intrusive barriers in order to prevent stray golf balls from damaging property is also a factor which must be considered. Many homeowners like myself at Rancho La Quinta have spent a great deal of money to buy a home which is quiet and removed from the exact effects this project would have on us. Even though I am mostly pro -development, I must express my vehement opposition to this project in any form. Even if the lighting requirements were to be removed, I would still fired this project objectionable due to the degradation this would cause to the beauty of this area. This project should be moved elsewhere. The property on which it is based must not be zoned properly and I hope that the Planning Commission will vote it's unanimous opposition to this project because it is not suited to this area. Sincerely, Neill E. Anderson ANDERSON-BARROWS METALS CORPORATION 2800 ANDERSON AVENUE PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA 93550 (805) 272-4600 0 (800) 828.4300 0 FAX(805) 272-4649 M A 2Dalmix 48-105VwVa!(arta La (7yu" C9192253 Oct 20 ' 9? 12 ::S ? VIIl. #A Tracy. Inc HBA coct otwn 20. 1997 Dan camrhell The Home Repot, Inc. hat 1 South 'Placentia Vullertoin CA 92631 Re '11w Hone Dowt IA Ouinta Per our phone r-o1nversation this morning, we are anticipating a completion date of Novendjer 10, l 997. This completion date is for the remainder of the Work alom )ughwav 1.11 per plans approved on September 30, 1997. -1lais Proposed completion date does not take into consideration delays due to wewther nr untbr.esu.-en conditions. If you require any further assistance or information, do not hesitate to contact me. Sinurelly, Ion Gilmer General Manager /jl ;A l is # 712339 AZ Ur_ # ? 05723 ooathern California 23011 Moulton Parkway, Suite C-13 - Laguna Hills, California 92653 - (714) 472-4002 Fax (714) 479 48,96 Northern California 1652 W Texas, Suite 201 - Fairfield, California 94513 - (707) 996-1464 Fax (707) 939-768Q Ari7ning 7711 Nnr#h 44th Crrnvt gnitp 147W - PhnPnix Ari7nn2 RSMR - (AM) Ri7-4797 Fax 0,01) R57 October 23, 1997 :lUT 1'D97 City of La Quinta Planning Commisstion 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Commissioners: My name is Don Spears and I am a full time resident of the City of La Quinta residing at 78-864 Via Camel It is my understanding that the Commission is considering the plans of Thomas Bienek for a golf driving range and two story restaurant/retail building to be located in the vicinity of Avenue 48 and Adams. The hearing on this matter is currently scheduled to come before the Commission at your regularly scheduled meeting on October 28, 1997. I urge the Commission to reject the proposed golf driving range for the following reasons: • It is inappropriate to build a two story commercial structure next to a residential community consisting primarily of single story residences. • The plan to include a video arcade, which typically attracts youths, and an establishment that serves alcoholic beverages is an inappropriate environment for the young people of our community. • The lighting required to operate the driving range will have an extremely detrimental effect on the ability to view the night sky. The preservation of the night sky, as you are aware, is an important issue with the residents of our city and was, within the past year, reaffirmed by the City Council • The safety netting required for the golf course will be unsightly, detracting from the esthetics and home values in the surrounding areas of Lake La Quinta and Rancho La Quinta. Your consideration of the above points and their application to the proposed project is greatly appreciated. Yours truly, Don Spear 79-035 Via San Clara • La Quinta, CA 92253 • tel (760) 771-0090 0 fax (760) 771-1720 October 22, 1997 QCT 2 ? 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 I have! just returned to the desert and became aware of Thomas Bienek's plan to develop an 80-tee:, night -lighted driving range adjacent to Rancho La Quinta. I am completely opposed to this project since the lighting, stanchions, and resultant traffic would be extremely intrusive and devaluate not only the environment, but also the lifestyles and property values of the residents of Rancho La Quinta and other nearby developments affected by this proposal. I am joining the chorus of other residents in vehemently opposing this project. Very truly yours, O.A. Friend OAF/jc ,,-- cc: Tom CuIlinan from the desk of C.L. WEBBER �� n...e�xi•6 c�..v,��%' UU �9` �`�G�C���.v�rn.Q� c7ivf� eG�J�' - � . 14-��...� Zile .may ,� ✓, .� �. ems•• ��tr >.v o•`9 ;i �''�'i .rrr.K-r d . /'�ti1,t . v^� ci IlL , �! �I .��/y, t� • iiYt l � *i�/I ILY/1/�.0 . d✓ 1U' L' /i'L�iL� 6 OL°��, eZ4. OLD MUM MEAT MARKET VISALIA LOCKERS and WHOLESALE MEATS, INC. 620 West Murray Street - Visalia, California 93291 - Telephone (209) 732-6439 October 23, 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: The Pairings Driving Range To whom it may concern: As residents of Rancho La Quinta Country Club, my wife and I are vehemently opposed to Thomas Bienek's plan to develop an 80 tee night lighted golf range. We spent over two years shopping for a home in the desert, and we considered many factors before making our decision to purchase a home at Rancho La Quinta Country Club. One of the factors was the tranquility of the area, affording us peaceful days and evenings, with no obtrusive noise or lighting to spoil our privacy. With the proposed driving range, we feel that we will be cheated out of the peacefulness that drew us to the area in the first place. We have only owned our home for six months, but if: this project is approved, we will sell our residence and relocate elsewhere. We are not interested in a "Los Angeles" type of atmosphere being created next to our desert home. I:t is imperative that you consider all of the concerns and objections of Rancho La Quinta residents. We ask that you do not apP rove this project, as it will adversely affect our quality of life, as well as having a negative -impact on our property values. Cnir address is: 78-950 Rancho La Quinta Drive, 92253. Sincerely, James E. Byrd Luanne C. Byrd CUTTING CURING SMOKING 0® Aicademv Discovery it the IvI, Tower D. Eugene Thorne, Ph.D., J.D. Robert H. Crist, M.D. ABPH, ABPP, ABFP Pauchiatric Consultant Director Curtis N. Van Alfen, Ed. D. Carol W. Thorne Tori K. Ballard Educational Consultant Administrator Admissions Director October 25, 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Cahe Tampico La Qwuta, Ca. 92253 Re. Proposed lighted golf driving range by Thomas Bienek adjacent to Rancho La Quinta Country Club Dear Sirs: Having served on similar coin innissionns, I am somewhat aware of the awful burden you bear in trying to actually have a "plan" for a community, while trying "make everyone happy." Still, the job must be done,, and it must be done well: whatever your decisions are, they will impact the lives and lifestyles of people for many generations. Often, the best you can do is study the various proposals carefully, gather as much information as you can about the nature and quality of the proposed entity and its builder, then survey those who would be most impacted by your decision. I'm glad you are doing that, and, it is with this assurance that I write this letter. I am a homeowner in Rancho La Quinta Country Club. My wife and I are already planning on more and more rapidly transitioning into full-time residents of "RLQ." Hopefully within the next year or two. We purchased our home in RLQ after receiving various kinds of "assurances" that this was a well - planned community; that it was quiet, attractive, sheltered from the glare, din and distraction of "commercial" enterprises. It was already apparent from our neighboring communities that there was an explicit commitment to beauty and style that would be attractive and grow in terms of property values while insulating the occupants from the encroachment of various social and commercial nuisances. There is already a wonderful homogeneity that exists among the various La Quinta communities where Mr. Bienek is proposing to build a lighted, golf driving range with accompanying restaurant and parking for 195 autos! The site where Mr. Bienek proposes to invade with a golf driving range (which is expected to operate from early morning through late evening hours) is immediately adjacent to a lovely living community which has (had) the great potential of expanding toward the highway and Indio. But, not so, Lf your commission were to approve Mr. Bienek's hostile and distracting business enterprise. Please: do not approve Mr. Bienek's commercial proposal. To do so would most certainly frustrate what appears to have been La Quinta's former planner's hopes and dreams for this community to become and remain a peaceful and lovely living community. Were your recommendation on this proposal to be favorable, I know that my wife and I would want to sell our lovely home in RLQ immediately, before its value and tranquil living style are trashed by such a divergent and alien enterprise. Most incerely Dr. & Mrs. D. Eugene Thorne 105 North 500 West • Provo, Utah 84601 • (801) 374-2121 Louis el. Fisher. Jr. 18.170 ]Paso ''iempo lane 1997 La 1 fuinta. California 02253 October 21, 1978 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78--495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: The Pairings Driving Range Dear Planning Commission: As registered voters in the City of La Quinta and as residents in the Rancho La Quinta community, we wish to express our objections to the proposed commercial enterprise referenced above: (1) We do not feel that it is correct to extend the commercial corridor of Hwy 111 south to Avenue 48 whereby creating two different zonings, that are diametrically opposed to each other - heavy commercial across the street, enveloped by quite and established residential communities. (2) We object to the very nature of this commercial project in this specific site. If this land has to be developed commercially, why not a more typical project such as office building, etc. that adhere to normal 9 to 5 business hours with registered tenants. We do not see this type of proposed development in any of the most commercial sections of the Valley's cities - why here. Any enterprise that requires a very large number of 100 foot lighting poles in order to operate, that requires 18 hours of daily operating hours, that serves beer and wine surrounded by video games, that could potentially attract 1300 cars with visitors on a daily basis and with the potential of acting more like an amusement park in order to generate revenues; is totally intrusive to La Quinta's residential communities. This is not why we recently moved to La Quinta. 1, In consideration of the good and well being of all La Quinta's residents and visitors who moved here, visit here, and live. here because of the quite residential image portrayed by the Cityof La Quinta, we implore you not to recommend approval of this development to the City Council. Respectfully, Louis A. i er, Jr. Beverly Fisher