Loading...
2007 02 13 PC MinutesMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA February 13, 2007 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was reconvened at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Quill who asked Commissioner Alderson to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Katie Barrows, Jim Engle, and Chairman Paul Quill. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Barrows to excuse Commissioner Daniels. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Planning Manager Les Johnson, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Assistant Planner Yvonne Franco, Senior Code Compliance Officer Anthony Moreno, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Quill asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of January 23, 2007. There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Barrows to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Environmental Assessment 2006-573 and Site Development Permit 2006-865; a request of CNL Desert Resorts, L. P. for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a signature pool facility, for the property located on the west side of Avenida Obregon, approximately 150-feet south of Avenida Fernando, within the La Quinta Resort. 1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff reviewed the P:\Reports - PC\2007\2-13-07\2-13-07 Minutes.doc Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 revised Public Works Department conditions. Mr. Tony locacciato, Impact Sciences, the City's CEQA consultant, gave a presentation on the EIR Addendum. Community Development Director Doug Evans gave a history of the Resort, traffic reports and parking. Staff noted each time there has been a change to the Resort the City has evaluated the environmental impacts. 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked if in the analysis of the grading would there be any import or export or soil. Staff stated there will be some export for the excavation of the proposed pools. The applicant will have the accurate export amount. Commissioner Alderson asked the timeframe is for the construction. Staff suggested the applicant would need to answer that question. Commissioner Alderson asked what future use the Morgan House would have and would it be related to this pool. Staff stated the Morgan House is technical issue. Under California law it needs to be renovated and re- enforced or demolished over time. At this time there is no proposed use associated with this project and no impact from this project on the House. Staff will be working with the applicant on all historic buildings on the property. 3. Commissioner Barrows asked staff to clarify the parking that would be eliminated and outline the entry gate turnaround area. Staff indicated the changes to the parking spaces at the entry that would be eliminated .on the site plan. Commissioner Barrows asked if the rock mountain structures for the pool had any height constraints in regard to the City's height limits. Staff stated they are within the City's height limits. Commissioner Barrows asked the City's height limitations for Tourist Commercial areas. Staff stated they are allowed up to 40-feet. 4. Commissioner Engle asked the height of the southern rock feature. Staff stated it is 28 feet. Commissioner Engle asked the height of the buildings to the north of the rock features. Staff stated they are approximately 26 feet and the shorter rock is 18.5 feet in height. Commissioner Engle asked if the pool would primarily be a summer use. Staff stated yes. 5. Chairman Quill asked what the finish grade would be for the lazy river and pool. Staff stated in this case they were referring to the deck area at the base of the rock feature. It is not the 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 water level which is approximately six inches lower. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the splash pool for water slide feature is approximately four feet below grade. 6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Guill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Pel)a, consultant for the La Guinta Resort, gave a presentation on the history of the Hotel. Mr. Paul McCormick, General Manager of the La Guinta Hotel,' gave a presentation on the effects of the Hotel in the community and the proposed project. 7. Commissioner Alderson asked the applicant the estimated time of construction, how much dirt would be exported and how many gallons water will be flushed out of the system into the water table. Mr. McCormick stated the construction should take between ten and 12 month. Mr. David Urban, CNL Hospitality Corporation and Mr. Chris Bergh, MDS Consulting, stated the export of dirt should be 12-15,000 yards from the construction of the pools. The backflush of water should be 13,500 gallons every four days going through a septic system, into percolation pits and ultimately recharge the groundwater. It is domestic water that refills the pools. 8. Commissioner Barrows asked the applicant to identify the public meetings they had held with the local residents. Mr. McCormick stated they held meetings on June 28th and September 7'" at the Resort. Notices were mailed to everyone within 500 feet within the property boundaries. They have also met with Homeowners' Association Board (HOAI board, opposing counsel, and the HOA from Santa Rosa Cove. Commissioner Barrows asked what measures they were taking to incorporate water and energy conservation into the project. Mr. McCormick spoke to the landscaping plans and how energy conservations measures would be taken in regard to the plant material. Mr. Urban stated water conservation is a concern and cost issue for the Resort. The pools operate on a closed loop system. They recharge from the splash pool area. It is not new water that is constantly being discharged out. Most of the area is hardscape and will continue to be. They do not have a lot of high water plant users. They will be centralizing the mechanical equipment and they will be at higher elevations to minimize pump sizes which will reduce noise as well as being energy 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 efficient. They can also segregate the active pool area from the formal pool area. Commissioner Barrows asked if the pump system would be state-of-the-art with respect to energy conservation. Mr. Urban stated that was the focal point of their design. 9. Commissioner Engle asked if the landscaping plans complied with CVWD requirements. Mr. McCormick stated yes. Commissioner Engle asked about security issues. Mr. McCormick explained their security system as to who is patrolling which streets/areas. Commissioner Engle asked if the pools/slides could be seen from Eisenhower Drive. Mr. McCormick stated they would not be seen from Eisenhower Drive or Avenida Obregon. 10. Chairman Quill asked about noise attenuation from the pumps especially from the wave actuator. Mr. McCormick explained how the pumps would be under-ground and insulated to reduce the noise. Mr. Bob Robby, noise consultant, stated the mechanical equipment is located inside the mountain to provide a lot of attenuation. The wave generator, -the venture which creates the wave is below the surface of the water so there will be no audible noise. Chairman Quill asked about the length of the construction phase in particular how they would handle the parking and noise. Mr. McCormick stated the Hotel will be operating during the construction phase so they will be sensitive to the length of time it will take to construct the project as well as any noise issues. Chairman Quill asked about the complaints they had received regarding the traffic problems along Avenida Obregon. Mr. McCormick stated their on-site security has been increased and they will continue to ticket those who are violating the parking requirements. They are also trying to improve their reaction time to remove the violators. Chairman Quill asked if the lack of tennis courts will be addressed. Mr. McCormick stated the tennis program is a viable part of their business, but the play has decreased over time. Their plans are to enhance the remaining existing courts as well as adding courts elsewhere on their property. Chairman Quill asked about the finish water surface elevation of the pool and lazy river at 43 feet; how does this relate to the rock mountain structure. The finish floor elevations of the adjacent tennis villas at about 49.5 feet which makes the water surface approximately 5.5 feet below the two-story tennis villas to the north. He is trying to understand the height of the 28 foot mountain as it relates to 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 the tennis villas. Mr. McCormick stated they measured them and the tennis villas to the top of the chimneys is about 29.5 feet. Chairman Quill asked how that 28 foot elevation relates to the 43 foot water surface elevation. Ms. Anne Guillebeaux, ED SA, landscape architect for - the site, stated that in the southwestern corner of the tennis villa site, the adjacent grade at the base of the Villas is 46 feet and the adjacent grade at the pool deck is 46 feet. Chairman Quill stated the plans show the finish floor of the first floor of the Villas is 49.5 feet. Mr. Barret Bruchhauser, MDS Engineering, stated they would be at an elevation of 49.5. Chairman Quill asked what does the 28 foot height elevation of the mountain relate to is it related to the 46- feet or the water elevation. Mr. Bruchhauser stated the top of the mountain is actually 75 feet above sea level. Chairman Quill stated that therefore, the top of the buildings will be the same as the top of the mountain peak. Mr. Bruchhauser stated that was true. Chairman Quill asked how the rocks would be treated to appear real. Ms. Guillebeaux stated they have drafted contracts with detailed specifications that the contractor will be held to. Chairman Quill asked if the intention is to mimic what is in the Cove. Ms. Guillebeaux stated yes. Chairman Quill asked about the requirement of the Fire Department for a rear access to the pool equipment. Mr. Urban stated it will be taken care of on site and they have asked for an alternate site. Chairman Quill asked how the pool users would be identified. Mr. McCormick explained how people would gain entrance to the pool and how they would be screened to ensure only those who have access are allowed in. They must have proof of registration or membership before entering. 11 . Chairman Alderson asked how guests of a member would be allowed. Mr. Urban stated they have not identified how this will be handled yet. The member cannot pay a fee to have their guest attend. If they are a registered guest, they would have access. Mr. McCormick clarified that when he stated earlier that tennis courts would be added to their property, he was referring to the Citrus Course property. 12. Commissioner Barrows asked about the trees shown on top of the rock mountain that are probably 1 2 feet high and how this would blend with the local landscaping. Mr. Urban stated a recommendation was to incorporate some planting elements to illustrate a realistic landscape to create a lush desert oasis feel and not just have bare rocks. Commissioner Barrows stated her 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 1 3, 2007 concern is that if they are trying to blend these that to add 12 + feet on top of the mountain may affect the views of the neighbors and may not be the best way to go. Mr. Urban stated it is not their intent to add 12-foot trees. They do not intend to obstruct any views. Commissioner Barrows stated there is a residential environment surrounding the resort and this is a typical resort; how has it worked in other areas. Mr. McCormick stated that one of the benefits of being a part of Hilton is that they have a lot of properties that operate in different environments. He went on to describe how a pool with a slides works in their other facilities. Commissioner Barrows asked about special event purposes such as weddings; how often would these occur and would there a cut off time. Mr. McCormick stated the cutoff time for the water feature is 6:00 p.m. They currently utilize space within the hotel for special events without complaints. 13. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. Roger and Madeline Lolley, 77-317 Avenida Fernando, stated they live at the Tennis Villas and were not notified correctly of the meetings. As they were not notified in a timely manner. This project will affect their property values. They will be losing rental fees during the construction time; will they be compensated for the lack of rentals during the construction of the project? This is a water park, not a signature pool. It is foolish to think people will come here because of a water slide. This project will detract from the full time people who come here for a quiet environment. Even though the numbers are right does not mean it is morally right to do it. 14. Mr. Wayne Guralinick, Corporate Counsel for the Enclave, Tennis Villas, and Los Estados, which surround the proposed project. He reviewed an aerial of the site. Staff would not have brought this project forward to the Commission if it was a stand-alone project with 14-foot setbacks from residential homes. There is no doubt this is a water park that belongs in an industrial area. They want to be good neighbors. At a minimum there should be substantial continuance to have the applicant meet with the HOAs to come up with substantial mitigation and less of the intensity. They recognize the Hotel might need to renovate some of the tennis courts and add some water features, but not a water slide at this scale. 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 1 3, 2007 15. Ms. Marie Mack, Esq., attorney for the surrounding residential homeowners, stated the technical studies provided by the applicant are grossly inadequate. This project should be denied and reanalyzed due to the close proximity to the residences. Ms. Mack went over the issues stated in her letter of February 12,2007. 16. Ms. Kay Wollf, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, representing the Cove Association, raised issues regarding landscaping on the west side of Eisenhower Drive between Calle Tampico and the bridge, property owned by the la Quinta Resort. The City has cited the Resort in order to have this landscaping restored to its original condition. It is still inadequate and not fixed. They would like to request that if this project is approved they should be required to upgrade the landscape including the chain link fence with a living fence, and trees for shade that would create an inviting image to the Cove residents. 17. Mr. Jack McDonald, 49-035 Calle Flora, stated they want the hotel to continue to be successful. They support the amenities of the hotel but also want the community to be a good place to live. Second they are concerned that the proposed water park will hurt the hotel and nearby communities. The noise study inadequately addresses the actual noise that will be generated from the park. Third, there has been inadequate time to evaluate the impact of this water park. More time is needed to evaluate it properly. He has only had ten days to review the noise study and if they had adequate time, they would probably find the same issues with the traffic study. Fourth, they request the Site Development Permit be denied. 18. Ms. Judy Ely, 76-972 Calle Mazatlan, stated they bought their property as a tennis resort. Imagine their disappointment when they found out that the tennis courts would be reduced by 40% as well as the addition of a water park right in the middle. The current recreation uses can be divided into two parts; pool and tennis uses. These uses are located away from the residential uses. To understand the density she counted the number of lounge chairs shown around the pool and it came out eleven times the population density of the tennis courts. Eleven times the people means significantly more noise. The two rock mountains are the same height as the tennis villas which means their views will be obstructed. A water park in a residential area is not tolerable. 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 19. Mr. William McCane, 79-205 Fox Run, moved to this location out of Santa Rosa Cove due to the amount of noise coming from the Hotel activities. The notice sent out regarding this hearing was confusing and incorrect in its definition. It sounds like the use has already been approved. He also does not understand how the notice can state there will be no new significant environmental impacts. He does not understand how the Community Development Department can come to this conclusion. This is a major redevelopment involving the demolition of about half of the available tennis courts, large ,swimming pools as well as walkways and parking totaling 195 square feet of demolition. It also includes six months of construction noise and fumes in an area that already has problems with traffic and safety. Once completed this will be a full scale waterpark in the middle of a pre-established residential district generating traffic, parking, noise, and light impacts. The issues of compatibility with adjoining uses and the right to a quiet environment as well as reduction of property values. There has been an evolution of a Hotel, but there has also been an evolution of the residential uses adjoining the Hotel that has not been mentioned in the findings. This project does not belong in this location. 20. Mr. William Puget, 77-600 Avenida Fernando, stated he lives directly across from the conference center at 'the Hotel. They have lived here for 20 years and strongly object to the water park. It is inconceivable that there are no significant impacts. The notion that the users of the pool will be limited to only guests of the hotel and membership is not true. They have heard that the Estates at Point Happy are also offering memberships with access to the Hotel amenities. There may be other developments who also are offering memberships as well. Who is going to enforce the users of the pool? It is an illusion that there will be a.controlled access. He urges the Commission to vote against this project. 21. Mr. John Lissberger, 77-385 Loma Vista in the Mountain Estates, stated he has lived here for 20 years and has been disappointed with the City. The people who live here are abused. This historic Hotel is slowly being eroded and encroached upon. They were promised that the Mountain Course would stay a private course. Since KSL bought the Hotel, now the course is not private. Avenida Fernando is a 8 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 private road and multiple uses such as trucks have been using it. He would respectively ask that it be declined. 22. Ms. Mary Jane O'Connor, 77-343 Avenida Fernando, stated the hotel uses this area for most of their parties, weddings, bands. She has called the Hotel to complain on numerous times about the noise and has received no response. The pool is to have limited access with the gates locked and she knows there are numerous people that have been in there from outside the area. The parking spaces are taken by vendors and parking is not enforced. They state they will be planting trees on top of the mountain that will block their views. She has a great concern about the traffic that will be generated by the project. 23. Gloria Dodd, 48-690 Via Sierra, president of Mountain Estates HOA, stated that from where lives at the tennis villas she could stand on her deck and dive into the lazy river. Her concern is the number of trucks lined up to make their deliveries at 7:00 a.m. What about all the other condo projects that bought membership into the Hotel Club. How will they all get to the pool? How are they going to get to their homes with all this additional traffic? They already fight the traffic just to get home. 24. Mr. Rick Bylsk, 76-980 Avenida Fernando, President of the Los Estadoes HOA, stated he recognizes the benefits and successes of the Hotel. Their properties are tied very closely to the success of the Hotel because of the amenities offered. They were concerned when they learned about the signature pool, as there isn't even a definition of a signature pool. This is a water park or a morphing of the Hotel's quiet ambiance. Looking at the pool area with over 200 lounge chairs that will be increased to 700 is a strong impact. He would strongly encourage the Commission to deny this project. 25. James Carley, 77-303 Mazatlan, stated he has been a homeowner for 15 years and is against the pool because of the impact of additional traffic and noise. He purchased his home for the tranquility. A 30-foot water slide is not below grade and not tranquil. 26. Jeff Nagelberg, 49-045 Calle Flora, stated his concern about the timeline of the project. They will not be able to complete this project in ten months. People in Santa Rosa Cove have 9 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 already had water table issues. If this percolation system is faulty in any way it will cause remarkable damage. Will he be forced to listen to a movie when he sits out at his pool. Living in the Cove you know how noise will rebound off the mountains. The idea that this project will not impede on them, is ridiculous. He urges the Commission to at least delay the project and ask CNL to move the project further back onto their' own property. 27. Mr. Bram White, 77-631 Los Arboles, stated he too is concerned with property values, safety, security, traffic and noise. Hearing this project characterized as a water park, he has taken his children to Raging Waters and he would not want that located here. This is not a water park and will not be open to the general public. If it were he would be strongly opposed. In terms of traffic, if it is open only to the Hotel guests and members, the Hotel is limited number of rooms and can only sell that number of rooms. He does not see all the noise concerns that are being expressed. He hears kids making noise in the pools in his neighborhood and they will make noise wherever they are. Construction is taking place all over the City as well as at the Hotel and it does go away. He would ask everyone to view this in the big picture that the concerns are a little overblown. 28. Mr. Bill Bresnaham, 78-420 Calle Felipe, stated he is a member of the Club. He has found that the Hotel has been very reluctant to enforce their rules at the pools and tennis courts. They will need to change their system if they are going to improve this. How will they be forced to live up to what they state they are going to do? Will the City's Code Enforcement Department take care of the parking problems along Avenida Obr9gon and Avenida Fernando. 29. Mr. Tom Leverty, 48-805 Via Linda in the Mountain Estates. He has two issues. In the June 28'" presentation they were told that the competition for this type of amusement park ranged from 2 to 2.5 acres. This is proposed on 4.7 acres. They want to work with the Hotel, but they need to work together. They have asked them to speak to their HOA. If all 3,000 of the people who live in the area would go to dinner one time a year at the Hotel it would cover the 15,000 covers they will get from the Hotel guests. 10 Planning Commission Minutes February 1 3, 2007 30. Mr. Jay Green, Mountain Estates, stated the notice says the applicant is CNL and questions and answers have been addressed to CNL. If he understands it correctly, CNL has sold the Hotel to Morgan Stanley, and CNL will be gone. Who is the applicant when CNL is leaving town? Is a corporate interest going to trump the interests of the 200 odd residents who are here tonight? 31. Mr. Paul Keye, 49-991 Mazatlan, stated he is impressed with the Hotel and is concerned with what they will bring in next. He is surprised that this development would not require any additional reports. The Tennis Tournaments were previously held at the Hotel. What drove the migration of the Tennis Tournament championships to Indian Wells? Would you buy a home next to a signature pool. He hopes he did not. 32. Mr. Steve Davis, 77-500 Avenida Fernando, stated the Resort does not own Avenida Fernando and it is not a public road. He and Mr. Puget own a portion of the road. Their portion goes to approximately to the middle of the road. The road is about 24- 25 feet wide. He displayed pictures of trucks that travel down Avenida Fernando and the problems that are incurred because of this traffic. The truck in the picture is 70 feet long. They deal with approximately 20-30 of these trucks a day. The truck is stopped because it hit his wall and got stuck in the driveway. The truck actually hit his wall twice trying to deliver to the hotel. He informed the City that he is currently in litigation that the Resort owners have overburdened their easement rights on this road and they are asking for extinguishment of the easement. The City may want to consider that if they grant rights to this project, there is an act of litigation that is asking for extinguishment of their right of the road. He was never asked if they had any objection to use of the road. Staff referenced an EIR that was done in 1975. There were seven other means of access into the Resort at that time. If there are 6,000 cars a day going down Avenida Fernando is that still an adequate EIR. 33. Mr. Thomas Harms 79-605 Cetrino, stated one of the reasons we have zoning, planning and environmental assessments is to ensure there - consistency in compatibility between housing. What was true in 1975 is that staff was talking about what the environmental concerns were and that- is not necessarily true today. This land has been extensively developed and as part of II Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 that development those same issues were addressed and satisfied. What is being asked at this meeting is a request to change that judgement that was made. In his opinion there are two questions that are appropriate to be raised. One is whether or not it is good for the applicant to make money if that is a change in the decision of the City at that time. Rather the question is, is the change being requested material. Here there is a proposal to change the density of use substantially; a proposal to change the noise significantly; and a proposal to change the lighting. Are those changes adverse to the existing property owners who were in the prior environmental assessment promised one thing. The response would be that the change will be adverse and because there is a material adverse change, he does not believe that the finding that there is no adverse change is appropriate and this application should be denied. 34. Mr. Ron Olson, 77-905 Laredo Court, stated he is opposed to the water park for three reasons: traffic, the parking situation, and noise on Obregon. He is a member of Tennis and Fitness Club at Resort and has found it is very tough to find a parking space. He therefore has resorted to different ways to travel to the Resort. Avenida Obregon is so narrow that two cars can hardly pass each other. Walking is another means of getting there, but you find that two cars cannot pass. The original EIR did not consider the size of the vehicles that are now being driven. The golf cart is another option to travel to the site but there have been instances when they too have almost been hit by a CVWD truck. What provisions have been made for golf carts and bicycles to travel to the Resort as well as park at the Resort? Noise is another issue as he can hear the band that plays every afternoon at his house which is % of a mile away. What happens if the water park fails? What will happen to this "white elephant"? Also, will it be open to the public? 35. Mr. Scott Holmes, 77-490 Calle Cadiz, stated he owns two lots in the Enclave and Mountain Estates and asked that the application be denied and we all go home. His concern is that the extra traffic at the turn around area is going to cause the residents to the Mountain Estates to wait to enter their gate to get home. If the purpose is to increase occupancy during the summer, then why be open at Thanksgiving and Christmas? It is one thing to say noise levels meet standards and to live next door to it. How many of the Commissioners have been to Soak 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 City and how many would like to live next door to this? 36. Mr. Ed Mittelbusher, 77-333 Calle Mazatlan, asked if the Hotel feels that noise and light are not an issue, why not move it closer to Rinker Pool where it would only affect or not affect their guests? Why put it in the middle of a residential area. Yesterday there were at least six Morgan Stanley executives touring the facilities and there are none here at this meeting. Do they not want to hear what the people want to say? With the removal of the tennis courts they asked if they would be receiving a reduction in their tennis dues. They were told no, they would be raised. 37. Mr. Hayes O'brien, 48-840 Eisenhower Drive, stated he is member of the Club and is a real estate developer in Minnesota. He understand the right of a developer to develop their property, but he is concerned that this use of their property is tempered by the rights of surrounding property owners. The rights of the adjoining property owners are being trampled by the adjoining property owners. This is the wrong project in the wrong place at the wrong time. Please deny project. 38. Mr. Richard Fredericks, 49-875 Avenida Obregon, stated this is a safety disaster on the City's hands. He then gave pictures he had taken that were examples of the situation that currently exists along Avenida Obregon. Avenida Obregon is essentially blocked with bumper to bumper cars. Someone is going to get killed. This is the most ill advised proposal. The Resort does not keep its word. Tentative Tract Map 28545 showed that Avenida Obregon was to remain open and it was cut in half without public hearings. The parking on the tract map was reconfigured on Vista Flores from parallel parking to back out parking. There is no parking lot that meets the Zoning Code. Either the City cannot or will not enforce it. This water park will be bringing hundred or people to an area with no sidewalks. He is an abutting property owner and has an easement and his easement was cut in half from 40 feet to 20 feet without a public hearing or asking him his rights. The Resort does not police itself. You would think several citations would have been issued and yet only five citations were issued. Emergency vehicles could never get through. The Police say it is private property, but a fire lane is a fire lane and should be patrolled. He submitted the Property Rights provision of IT 28545 that were not adhered to by the Resort. He then submitted the 13 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 Counc;i1 Minutes into the record. Avenida Obregon is a collector street and is to be 40 feet wide. When you do not comply with the Zoning Code you will have a disaster. 39. Mr. Joseph A. Broido, 77-510 Calle Nogales, stated he agrees with Kay Wolff in regard to the berm on Eisenhower Drive that has not been maintained for 20 years. The Resort has not been a good neighbor no matter who has owned it. He would urge that a condition be added to this project to require the Resort to fix and maintain the berm along Eisenhower Drive. 40. Ms. Gloria Dodd, 48-690 Via Sierra, questioned the season CNL says the park will be used. What do they determine to be the "season"? It is n9t just a summer time, it will be more than just the summer months. People use their pools in the shoulder seasons as well. 41 . Mr. Phil Motts, Santa Rosa Cove, stated there are 2500 members to this cove and everything stated here should be multiplied by that number. 42. Mr. Jay Vaden 77-471 Loma Vista, stated he is concerned about Avenida Fernando because there are no sidewalk and very poor access. The triangle section crossing Avenida Obregon needs to be improved. He almost hit a lady walking in this area. There is also a new project that is being process across from the Tennis Villas. This is a matter of promotional sales. He loves the Hotel but does not like the way it has been run. 43. Ms. Leslie Fredericks, 49-875 Avenida Obregon, stated the La Guinta Hotel does not own all the area on Avenida Obregon. If she heard correctly, they are proposing another new gate on Avenida Obregon and she would like to know if this is true. Chairman Guill stated there will be no gate unless there is an issue and if that issue cannot be resolved by first placing a guard at this location. Ms. Fredericks stated she is a single- family two acre residents trapped in tourist commercial. If this gate is built, she is cemented her future as being a part of the La Quinta Hotel. 44. Mr. John Duggen 48-770 Via Linda, stated Mr. McCormick has stated the access to, and use of, this water park will be restricted to guests of the hotel. He would like to have a clear 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 definition of what a hotel guest is. He is particularly concerned that guest passes will not be given on a day basis. Will the guests be defined as being occupants of the Hotel? Chairman Quill stated that is the understanding before the Commission. 45. Mr. Ted Newell 77-160 Avenida Fernando, stated the 2500 members that do not use the facility all that often. The parking studies overlook the significance of the members who do not use the membership. If they put a water park in, he would be taking his grandchildren to the park which is another impact on the traffic. If you look at all those who will now be using the pool, there is the traffic increase. 46. Mr. Paul McCormick, La Quinta Resorts, stated this has been a resort for eight years. All the residents know the Resort is there. Public notifications were addressed to everyone within five hundred feet. Construction inconveniences are considered by themselves in regard to their guests. They believe they can keep the charm of La Quinta with these changes. It will not degrade the community. The noise study has been extensively studied. The issues with the berm on Eisenhower Drive that was referred to will be addressed. Their director has met with the City and they have received quotes to fix the area adding vegetation and decomposed granite. There is a' potential acquisition of the Hotel; however, he is an employee of Hilton and not CNL and Hilton will continue to market the Hotel. The Hotel has many more resources to solve problems that CNL did not. In regard to property values, construction will have an affect. The elements they are constructing in the signature pool will enhance their guests stay. It does not have all the water park amenities and therefore is not a water park. Members and children will be allowed to use the pool if they are living at home and are under 23 years of age. In regard to police calls, there are more calls made in the neighborhoods by volume than at the Hotel. Every time they have received a call they do respond with a security follow-up. They have added additional security to address these problems. They try to be a good neighbor. In regard to lighting and landscaping issues, it will be low level lighting as compared to the tennis light that now exists. 47. Mr. Richard Zeilinga, Legal Counsel for La Quinta Resort, stated that with the threat of litigation it is important to make the record clear on some issues. With respect to the context it is 15 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 important to note that there is a Resort, a commercial operation, that is on-going and has been on-going for 70 years and mixed in are residences that are a more recent vintage. This is a conflict and is very common where this is this type of mix. Why isn't there pro-active planning to deal with this issue? In this particular case, there was. He displayed portions of an Agreement that was for the residents at 49-454 Avenida Obregon. This Agreement talks about in great detail that the Hotel has the right to install any trees, landscaping or construct any improvements at any location within Tennis property which could be in near proximity to any lot within the project including the property. It also acknowledges that the buyer agrees that the seller makes no warranties, representations that the Tennis Club properties will be maintained and operated in the manner that existed or was contemplated at the time of purchase. It also states the buyer for himself, herself, or related parties hereby acknowledges the potential for nuisances created by or arising by the Hotel property including without limitation odors, noises, traffic, congestions and other nuisances arising from other operations, landscaping and maintenance of the Hotel property, early and late night events, etc., etc. The buyer assumes the risk of any creation of maintenance or trespass or nuisance created by or arising in connection with Hotel activities or any matters described above. This Agreement was signed by the buyer. This is a standard form agreement used for the purchase of new property. He cannot represent that when properties are resold that every buyer shared with subsequent buyers that they had executed this type of agreement. It does show the planning and pro-thought that went into dealing with the issues raised tonight. They contend based on the studies they prepared, there isn't a problem when you compare what was originally approved in the EIR on the project in 1975 and all the updates with the increases in units and the changes that have occurred since then. There have been five updates and the City has been involved in all the environmental updates since then. In regard to the noticing, not only did the City notice the area within 500 feet they are required to, it was sent out to the entire boundary of the Resort property. This is above and beyond what is required. In regard to noise, there were three areas that were studied. The study is overly conservative because when the study was completed, all of those factors and changes made in regard to the concerns raised by the neighbors, are not assumed in the study. The study did not assume that all these slides would be closed or 16 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 open, or that the mass had been split and brought down. The study did not consider the lazy river was lowered to reduce the noise impact. On traffic as there are no Hotel room increases, they did not believe hard quantitative counts were necessary, but they did it anyway and on parking and capacity, there is excessive capacity. He presented a photo taking of the parking area at 100% occupancy at 5:00 p.m. which showed no excessive parking. In regard to the Morgan House issue, the existing context is not a pristine context. The Morgan House is totally screened with an eight foot wall, and hedge. In regard to views they are not a significant impact by law. Finally, the City did not prepare a Negative Declaration, it prepared an Addendum to an EIR. This is an update to an existing EIR. 48. There being no further public comment Chairman Quill closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked for Commission discussion. 49. Commissioner Alderson applauded Mr. McCormick's effort to take care of the landscape issues on Avenida Obregon. He recognizes not everyone is going to be happy. He had reviewed over 600 letters in regard to this project and a lot of consideration has been given to this project. The concerns raised are important and legal ramifications are important. He stands by staff and legal counsel in that the City is within its rights to review and act on this application, but he believes we are putting in jeopardy this grand Hotel of la Quinta. The business plan says it is a financially viable plan. If this were not successful the fall back is dire and it would cost the owners millions. It is an exchange of recreational uses. Taking it all into consideration, is it good for la Quinta? At this point he is not sure he could support the project. 50. Commissioner Barrows stated she would consider continuing the application. In looking at the conditions they relate to the physical aspect of the project. She asked if the park would be used from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Staff clarified that was the time the applicant stated the park would be open. Commissioner Barrows asked if there was a more minimal use discussed with the applicant as this appears to be the high end of the use. Staff stated discussions were not held on alternatives. Commissioner Barrows stated she too has seen the transition of the Hotel, and she would like to see some alternatives to the current design. 17 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 51 . Commissioner Engle stated he too believes this issue needs to be resolved at this meeting. Everyone is opposed to change, but he supports this project. People are coming and putting their money back into the community. The issue of the landscaping maintenance along Eisenhower Drive, however needs to be resolved and strong code enforcement needs to be in place to see that it does not happen again. He believes it is a good project. 52. Chairman Quill stated he appreciates everyone who came out to voice their opinion. He too has been a resident for a long time and has seen the transition of this Hotel. However, he believes not only does the Hotel have the right to change, but it has the obligation to do so. It is important to allow it to grow. If it fails, they have the right to tear it down and try something different; and this is their right. The development of the City and the golf communities around the Hotel were developed as a result of the Hotel. In regard to this, conditions need to be added to address security and over parking concerns. The berm along Eisenhower Drive needs to be addressed and a full landscape design submitted for approval. From an operation perspective Eisenhower Drive and the bike path should be addressed. A specific written operating plan for the parking lot and security should be added as a condition to be approved by the City. This will be a beautiful plan and the impacts will not be significant. 53. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Engle/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-007 recommending certification of an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 41 I, and subsequent CEQA compliance documents, for La Quinta Cove Golf Club revised Specific Plan 121-E (19751, as amended, prepared for Site Development Permit 2006-865, as recommended. ROLL CALL: A YES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Engle, and Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Daniels. ABSTAIN: None. 54. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Engle/Chairman Quill to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-008 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2006-865, as recommended and amended: 18 . Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 a. Condition added: A written operations plan related to the pool and Avenida Fernando for security for parking shall be submitted and approved by staff. b. Condition added: A landscaping plan for Eisenhower Drive and the bike path to the maintenance facility shall be submitted and approved by staff. c. Condition added: The landscaping on top of the rock mountains features shall be restricted to a height limit. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Engle and Chairman Quill. NOES: Commissioners Alderson and Barrows. ABSENT: Commissioner Daniels. ABSTAIN: None. The motion faile"d. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated the policy of the City is that in a tie vote, the application is automatically a continuance. The missing member would be required to listen to a recording of the meeting and review all the material prepared and submitted. The options before the Commission are to continue the matter and allow the missing member to vote, or send the application to the City Council with the vote as taken: Discussion followed regarding the options before the Commission. 55. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Engle to adopt Minute Motion 2007-move the application forward to the Council with the vote as taken and with the added conditions. Unanimously approved. Chairman Quill recessed the meeting at 11 :04 p.m. and reconvened at 11 :09 p.m. B. Site Development Permit 2006-874; a request of Komar Investments, L.L.C. for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for seven commercial buildings, for the property located south of Highway 111 at Depot Drive. 1 . Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Les Johnson presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 19 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked why the retention basins are not on the site plan. Staff stated they were temporary during the construction of the Costco building. They will go away. Commissioner Alderson stated Building "A" has a 33 foot high architectural element. Is this a legal elevation because it is set back 150 feet? Staff stated the height is consistent with the Specific Plan. 3. Commissioner Engle asked if the applicant was in agreement with all the conditions. Staff stated the applicant would respond to that condition. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Clint Knox, representing the applicant, stated they were available for questions. 5. Chairman Quill asked if there was a potential for an access that would cross over the Evacuation Channel. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated her recollection was that we required an access on the easterly edge at a point to be determined in the future if it was feasible to get to Jefferson Street. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated it was not added to the Specific Plan. 6. Commissioner Barrows asked how the particular feature on Building "B" would provide shade. Mr. Knox stated it is an architectural element, but it would provide shade. 7. Chairman Quill asked if shading was provided on the plans. Staff noted the west elevations have 12-15 foot trellis covers; the east elevations have less. 8. Mr. Knox stated they are requesting a change to three conditions in regard to the Costco driveway which the Public Works Department has agreed to. Staff stated that was correct. 9. Commissioner Alderson asked if the median allows someone to exit Parcel 4 and go left. Mr. Knox explained you can make a left turn, but it is not a dedicated left turn. It is a right in/right out. The median will be modified. 20 Planning Commission Minutes February 1 3, 2007 10. There being no further questions of staff and no other public comment, Chairman Quill closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked for Commission discussion. 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Engle/Barrows to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-009 approving Site Development Permit 2006- 874, as recommended and amended: a. Condition 81. A linear hedge with low maintenance plants shall be installed. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Engle, and Chairman Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Daniels. ABSTAIN: None. C. Sign Application 2006-1078; a request of Imperial Sign Company, Inc. for consideration of a proposed sign program for permanent business identification signage and monument sign for Dunes Plaza, located at 79-6401700 Highway 111. 1. Commissioner Engle noted he had a potential conflict of interest and left the dais. 2. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Yvonne Franco presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked what staff objected to on the monument sign. Staff explained the applicant did not provide enough detail and the end elevation did not indicate the width. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated it is just an image that does not give any detail. The Center is very detailed and the monument sign is very simple. Staff is recommending it be redesigned and approved by staff. 4. There being no further questions of staff, the applicant not being present, and no other public commElnt, Chairman Quill closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked for Commission discussion. 2\ Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2007 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Alderson/Barrow to adopt Minute Motion 2007-003 approving Sign Application 2006-1078, as recommended. Unanimously adopted. Commissioner Engle rejoined the Commission. VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Continued - Notice of Public Nuisance Case No. 2006-5204; a request of Jeffrey S. and Ardis L. Manning for an appeal of a Public Nuisance regarding the violation of a recreational vehicle encroaching on the City right-of-way without a permit, parking in a location not zoned for vehicular parking, being improperly stored on a residential property, and a patio cover that violates the exterior side yard setback for the property located at 52-715 Avenida Navarro. 1 . Chairman Quill asked for the staff report. Senior Code Compliance Officer Anthony Moreno presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked if the appellant had a permit for the spa cover. Staff stated none was ever obtained and the appellant stated the cover was there when they bought the house. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if the appellants would like to address the Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Jeffrey Manning, 52-715 Avenida Navarro, stated the patio cover had been removed and was no longer an issue. In regard to the RV, he believes he meets the Municipal Code in regard to the Code requirements. 4. Chairman Quill asked staff for clarification on what was read from the Code by the appellant. Planning Manager Les Johnson stated the location of the RV is not immediately adjacent to. or parallel to the driveway as required by the Code~ 5. Ms. Kay Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, stated she thought the RV needed some kind of shading. What offended her was that it was in complete view of the public. 22 Planning Commission Minutes February 1 3. 2007 6. Mr. Joe Broido, 77-510 Calle Nogales, stated he dislikes seeing the RV, and reported it to the City. It does not comply with the intent of the City's Ordinance. RVs need to be screened to not be in view of the street. 7. Ms. Ardis Maning, stated the Code does not require the RV to be screened or behind a wall. They offered to plant additional trees and were told by Code COll1pliance it was not necessary. 8. Commissioner Engle asked if this was within what the Code allows. Staff stated it is within inches. Mr. Maning stated when he parks the vehicle it can be within the one inch and yet another time he may be 1.5 inches over. 9. Commissioner Alderson stated the point is that it is unattractive and asked the definition of a "driveway". City Attorney Kathy Jenson read the definition of a driveway. 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 2007-004 upholding the determination of Public Nuisance Case No. 2006-52. Unanimously approved. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on the City Council meeting of February 6, 2007. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Engle/Barrows to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on February 27, 2007. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 12:09 a.m. on February 13, 2007. Respectfully submitted, v . S yer, Executive Secretary a Quinta, California 23