Loading...
PCMIN 01 13 1998 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA January 13, 1998 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Gardner to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Butler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard and Chairman Butler. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Ms. Kathryn Hull, Chairman of the Cultural Commission and Mr. John Dentley, Commissioner to the Cultural Commission gave a presentation on the Cultural Master Plan. Chairman Butler asked that the representatives make a presentation at a future Planning Commission meeting and directed staff to have copies of the Cultural Master Plan for distribution to the Commission for their review prior to the meeting. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of December 23, 1997. Commissioner Tyler asked that the minutes be amended on Page 4, Item B.2., to delete the last five words of the sentence and renumber the paragraphs correctly. There being no other corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Seaton/Abels to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Tentative Tract 28640; a request of Watson & Christiansen Engineering for TD Desert Development for approval and recommendation to the City Council of a subdivision of land to create 77 single family and miscellaneous lots on 22.97 acres. PC-13-98 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1998 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked about the 55-foot width lots. He asked staff why the Commission was being asked to approve the street widths based on a future amendment being approved. It appears the Commission is telling everyone that whenever the amendment is reviewed, it will be approved. Staff explained the final map was being held in abeyance until the amendment was approved. They cannot go forward with building until the final map is approved and the final map cannot be approved until the amendment to the specific plan is approved. 3. Commissioner Woodard asked why should they approve this prior to the amendment. Staff explained this was a request of the applicant; they are taking the risk that the amendment will be approved. City Attomey Dawn _ Honeywell stated that if the Commission is not comfortable making this determination before the approval of the specific plan amendment, they can make the decision not to approve it at this time. 4. Commissioner Woodard stated there were two different dimensions mentioned in the report for the street width. Staff clarified the request is for a 36-foot width as required by the specific plan. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the specific plan for Rancho La Quinta has 36-foot width as the main spine to the project and 32-feet for the other streets. Commissioner Woodard asked why the double and single loaded streets require different dimensions, and is it the secondary/primary roads; you cannot have primary road with driveways. Staff stated they could as these are private streets and those with access to the houses are on the 32-foot streets. The specific plan under its environmental review, as originally adopted, provided the necessary environmental and traffic information to justify the 36- and 32-foot roads at that time. Staff is not proposing to change that requirement at this time. 5. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify that no lot can be more than three foot higher than the adjacent lot. Privacy will still be retained. Staff .stated it would be retained. 6. Commissioner Kirk asked for clarification on lot widths. Staff explained that cul-de-sacs have a narrower width requirement according to the zoning regulations. Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1998 7. Commissioner Woodard asked if some of the lots were flag lots. Staff stated that was true. 8. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Zoning Code requirements for a knuckle are not 35-feet. Staff stated that was true and the frontage for a flag lot was a minimum of ten feet. ' 9. Commissioner Woodard asked how a driveway could be installed within ten feet. Staff stated it was being corrected in the Zoning Code Update to make it 15-feet. 10. Commissioner Kirk confirmed that in this instance the flag lot is consistent with the revisions to the Code. Staff explained that the lots are flag lots proposed at 25-feet and the City's Code currently allows ten feet and staff is proposing to increase this requirement for the width. Therefore, the applicant is exceeding what the City requires. Discussion followed regarding the lot widths. 11. Commissioner Tyler asked if the lots 1-20 are the basic 55-foot lots being discussed. Staff stated they were interspersed within the tract. 12. Commissioner Woodard asked if the recreation/pool area plans come back to the Commission for review. Staff stated the Conditions of Approval require the recreation area and landscaping to be approved by the Director of Community Development. Commissioner Woodard clarified there were two recreation areas and asked that they come back to the Commission for review. Staff stated they would amend the conditions to reflect this. 13. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Keith Christiansen, Watson & Christiansen Engineering representing TD Desert Development, stated they had no objections to the conditions and were present to answer any questions the Commission may have. 14. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant was aware of the risk they were taking in regard to the amendment approval. Mr. Christiansen stated they were aware of the risk and were willing to do so. 15. Commissioner Woodard complimented the applicant on the angled lot configuration as it contributed more to the streetscape. PC-13-98 3 Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1998 16. Mr. Chevis Hosea, KSL Land Corporation, stated they would like to go on record as supporting this application as it would have an effect on their application to be heard later on the agenda regarding lot and street sizes. This too, is a risk they are willing to take in order to get their products approved while the market is favorable. He went on to explain the demand for the smaller lot width. 17. There being no further public comment, the public comment portion of the hearing is closed and open for Commission discussion. 18. Commissioner Woodard stated he would recommend approval of the tract on the condition that the design plans for the recreation area and landscaping come back to the Commission. 19. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #60 be changed to read "...shall be installed before issuance of the 30th building permit". Staff suggested that this condition also be changed to add a sentence requiring approval by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tyler suggested that the specific plan - amendment approval have a specific time limit as to when it should be approved. 20. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-001, recommending approval of Tentative Tract 28640, subject to the Conditions of Approval as modified: a. Swimming pool and related recreation areas shall be installed prior to the issuance of the goth building permit and the recreation area plans and landscaping be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. b. Recreation plan and landscaping plan come back to the Planning Commission. 21. Commissioner Kirk stated his concern about conditioning projects without discussing some of the issues. He then asked what was typically done with pool areas within private developments; does the Commission normally review these. Staff stated they are usually approved by the Director. Commissioner Kirk stated his concern about the Commission being distracted with what he believes should be staff's responsibility. A pool on the interior PC-13-98 4 Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1998 of a master planned development, which is'a' very small piece of the development, on private streets, isn't something the Commission needs to review. He then asked Commissioner Woodard what his rationale was for bringing this item back to the Commission as it appears to create a bureaucratic hassle for the applicant. 22. Commissioner Woodard stated that in his opinion the Commission has two obligations: 1) planning issues, and 2) design review issues. You can take the position that the Commission should not review anything from the design point of view because of the bureaucratic nightmare, or you can look at it that it is the Commission's responsibility to reView all design elements whether it is within a private or open development. Just because it is private does not mean the Commission has no obligation to protect the present and future residents to ensure the quality of design as well as landscaping will be there. It is not his intent to take this responsibility away from staff. Staff does review it and make comments in. regard to the design process, but the Commission is here to monitor their recommendations and add or subtract to those recommendations to go forward, as a body, for design responsibilities. Why Should.they give up those responsibilities when it appears to be a bureaucratic hassle? 23. Commissioner Kirk stated that was his question; is it a matter of all of a sudden they give this up, or is it all of a sudden they are acquiring more responsibility. What he hears from staff is that in the past they have had the responsibility. How much design should the CommiSsion undertake. His recommendation is that if they were to draw the line, a pool area within a master plan development is not something the Commission should review. 24. Commissioner Woodard stated that on a previous project, a maintenance shed within PGA West, Commissioners expressed concern as to why they should review the design of a shed. It is fine for the Commission to say this, but there are people who live there who have to look at that shed on a daily basis. It may not have been the best design, but it got through staff. Therefore, he believes they have a responsibility to monitor design issues of the City whether private or public. 25. Commissioner Kirk stated this was his opinion and may not be shared by the other Commissioners, but he did want to raise it. PC-13-98 5 Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1998 26. Commissioner Woodard asked staff what the size was of the two recreational sites within this project. Staff stated the total was about a half acre. 27. Commissioner Kirk asked if Commissioner Woodard was asking staff, on furore approvals, to draft conditions for these types of recreational facilities for Commission review. Staff stated this is a specific plan and as the applicant will be filing an amendment it might be an opportunity for the Commission to draft architectural and design guidelines for landscaping and pool facilities to enable staff to continue the review process. This would enable the Commission to concentrate on the specific plan for design and allow staff to make the review approvals. 28. Commissioner Woodard asked staffhow they would make the determination as to what staff approves and what is referred to the Commission. Staff stated their review and approval would be based on the guidelines and landscaping.palettes that would be approved by the Commission for the specific plan. 29. Commissioner Kirk stated this would make more sense. The Commission would be more involved with pro-active planning rather than reactive planning in determining the guidelines staff can use for some of the smaller components in the community. He would 'support the Commission reviewing the design guidelines at the specific plan stage and make sure they make sense. 30. Commissioner W°odard stated he thought it would be virtually impossible to develop design guidelines for some .the larger projects that could be utilized for the smaller projects. Staff explained that a structure such as a clubhouse or maintenance facility would be reviewed by the Commission under a site development permit. Staff is reviewing landscaping of the open space areas and the facilities for a pool and associated building. 31. Commissioner Woodard stated, based on this information, he would like to amend his motion to delete the requirement for Commission review. Commissioner Abels agreed with the amendment to the motion. ROLL CALL:AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Site Development Permit 97-617; a request of La Quinta Golf Properties for approval to construct a 3,100 square foot recreation building, tennis court, swimming pool/spa, and parking lot for use in conjunction with existing Quarry clubhouse and golf course. PC-13-98 6 Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1998 · 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler opened the public heating and asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked which school district the tract was located within. Staff stated it would be Desert Sands Unified SchoOl District. 3. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern about approving a project when it is unknown what will be developed on the other parcels of this project. Parcels 2, 3, and 4 are stated to be future residential uses, but it is unknown what those uses will be. Staff explained Parcels 2, 3, and 4 will be single family residences. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked staff if they knew how the road pattem would be developed within the three parcels. Staff went over the circulation plan for the project. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern that the Commission is again being asked to approve planning where there is no idea of what the overall project will consist of, or what the road pattern will be. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the property is currently zoned for Low Density Residential with single family homes. If they propose an alternative use, they will have to come back through the same process for the Commission's review and approval. 5. Commissioner Woodard stated they currently can have four units per acre. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that in order to put more than one trait per lot, they would have to further subdivide the lots and that would require the filing of a parcel map. They can subdivide four lots or less with a remainder parcel through a Director's Heating. Commissioner Woodard stated that if one road comes in and goes to the triangular space, it could create a problem for fire protection, etc. Staff stated the triangular lot is fronted by two roads; one on the north from Lake Cahuilla, and the Quarry. Road on the south. Therefore there are opportunities to gain access to all the lots. 6. Commissioner Woodard asked how the parking was determined for the clubhouse. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated the Code requires 30 parking -- spaces for this use and this is what they are providing. 7. Commissioner Woodard asked what the gallery was to be used for. Staff stated it was proposed to be a lobby, but the applicant could define this better. PC-13-98 7' Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1998 8. Commissioner Seaton asked about the lighting in the parking lot. Staff explained they meet the requirements. 9. Commissioner Gardner asked if the project would have to meet all the current requirements for seismic loading. If an earthquake were to destroy the building, would they be able to rebuild under the old 'guidelines or would further review be required. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the State puts out the requirements for seismic safety which the City has adopted. In that requirement there is a requirement for the retrofitting of older buildings. It is assumed that the current Building Code contains those requirements necessary to withstand earthquakes. As the State amends its code, the City will in turn update its code requirements to match those changes. 10. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant wanted to address the Commission. Mr. Chris Schultz, Keith International, speaking on behalf of the developer, stated he was present to answer any questions the CommissiOn may have regarding the project. In regard to the Conditions of Approval they had a question concerning Condition #7, regarding the rough grading. They would like to modify the condition to allow the issuance of a rough grading permit prior to.the recordation of the final map in order to expedite the rough grading of the site. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that the standard method by the Subdivision Map Act is that the applicant install the improvements before you final the map. The alternative method is to final your map first, but in this instance you have to post bonds to ensure that all 'the improvements get installed. In this instance, the applicant wants to install their improvements in advance of the final map. This is a function of"deep pockets". 11. Commissioner Gardner questioned the floor plan in that the water closet lacked facilities in both the men's and women's area. Mr. Craig Bryant, WincheSter Development, representing La Quinta Golf Properties, stated the architect was not present to discuss the details. It was his understanding the application before the Commission was only for approval of a site development permit. 12. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public comment portion of the public hearing and opened the discussion to the Commission. 13. Commissioner Kirk stated he believed the project to be very well designed and he was in support. PC-13-98 8 Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1998 14. Commissioner Abels concurred with Commissioner Kirk's statements. 15. Commissioner Woodard stated he too thought the building was well designed. 16. Commissioner Seaton stated she too agreed that the design was exceptional and she supported the project. 17. Commissioner Tyler stated he too agreed, but thought Condition 11 should identify how many additional trees were being required. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that the condition specifies one for the island and three for the employee parking lot. Commissioner Tyler asked that it be clarified. 18. Commissioner Tyler stated that Section 3:11 of the Environmental Impact Report did not identify which school district would be serving each project. He suggested that Section 3:11 identify which school district the project would be servicing. 19. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-002 certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Site Development Permit 97-617, subject to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and. Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 20. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-003, approving Site Development Permit 97-617, subject to the findings and recommended conditions as amended. a. Condition #7: No building permits will be issued until the parcel map is recorded. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. PC-13-98 9 Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1998 C. Tentative Tract 28719; a request of KSL Land Corporation for approval and recommendation to the City Council to subdivide 15.6+ acres into 58 single family residential and miscellaneous lots in the RL (Low Density Residential) Zone on land previously subdivided by Tract 24889 and 24890-2. 1. Commissioner Gardner asked to be excused due to a possible conflict of interest and left the dias. 2. 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. 3. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Woodard asked what Lot A would be. Staff stated it was proposed to be a pool and spa area. Commissioner Woodard stated he did not want straight streets with double loaded lots and asked if the applicant could undulate Cetrino Road, where some of the lot area could be absorbed. Commissioner Tyler commented that the curbs and gutters are installed. Senior Engineer - Steve Speer explained that this tract was previously subdivided in 1989 and the developer has decided to reconfigure the lots shapes but maintain the basic street shape. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked what the lot sizes were originally. Staff stated they were to be condominium lots. Commissioner Woodard stated he thought the original tract map probably had some undulation and setback variation to create some type of interest. The Commission is now being asked to accept a Straight road pattern with narrow lots in an exclusive area. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with Commissioner Woodard, but in this case it would be a hardship as the streets are installed. 5. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this is an amended tract map which opens the tract up for any changes the Commission deems necessary. Commissioner Woodard asked how much of the improvements were installed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that the curb and gutter, sewer and water are all installed. 6. Chairman Butler asked if any recommendation could be made on the size of the lots. Commissioner Woodard stated he had no problem with the size of the lots, just the straight and double loaded streets. He would suggest that Cetrino be bent in toward Lot "A" which would reduce the size of Lot "A" and add a slight curve to both sides of the street. PC- 13-98 10 Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1998 7. Commissioner Kirk stated he did like straight streets, but in this case the emphasis is on the rear yard and the active area is the golf course. This results in a row of garages on the street with mono articulation and uninteresting streetscapes. 8. Commissioner Woodard asked why the angle lots could not have been done as the previous project. Mr. Chevis Hosea, KSL Land Corporation, stated they appreciated the Commission's concerns as it is not their desire to create monolithic types of neighborhoods, but in this instance they are completing another tract which requires them to deal with the impacts created by a previous builder. He went on to give a history on the lot configuration. In response to the angle lot, they are sensitive to the street scene and have concern as to how you enter a driveway.. Their hope is to accomplish this by the staggering of the homes from the street scene and' undulating the product perpendicular to the street. Regarding the Resolution and Conditions of Approval they do have concerns. They would like to request that in the Resolution under Item 1, the last sentence referring to 20-foot rear yard setback be deleted. 9. Mr. Hosea stated that ConditiOn 38 regarding the final capping on streets are not necessarily a part of this tract, needs to be clarified. Commissioner Woodard asked if there were roads that were less than perfect that need to be addressed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated staff was not aware of the actual condition of the road leading into this tract and they would not want to have homes built in this tract if there were dirt roads leading into the tract. The applicant's engineer stated the road is in, but does not have its final cap. Commissioners discussed the different roads leading into the tract and their condition. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it is a condition where KSL, the applicant does not own the land leading up to this tract. They have one access road leading in that does not have its final cap. 10. Mr. Hosea stated the capping of the streets is a part of the litigation between the City and the owners of the property. KSL has reached a settlement with the City in regard to their project. T° have KSL be responsible for the capping of the street would release the others from their obligation to the City. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this is a part of an ongoing litigation issue for this development. 11. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify what portion of the street they are asking to have capped. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that some of the street improvements have been put into place, but it is important not to put residents out there with unimproved streets. Mr. Hosea stated they had PC- 13-98 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1998 no concerns about completing the on-site improvements for their portion of the tract. What their concern is that they are not required to cap that portion of the streets that does not belong to them. Mr. Hosea requested that the 10% requirement regarding the cap be specific to their tract. 12. Chairman Butler clarified that the streets have been paved but had not received their final cap. Staff stated this was true. Discussion followed as to who was responsible for each portion of the streets. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it is staff's goal to clean up the problems within this tract. As pointed out by the applicant, it is a burden for them to go beyond the boundaries of their tract to cap the streets. Bonds have been placed on the tract development and staff will need to see if they can be used for this purpose. He would remind the applicant that the verbiage in the condition is that the applicant "may" be required. If the Commission so desires, this can be eliminated. 13. Commissioner Woodard asked if legal counsel was comfortable with this proposal. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that the wording of the condition does give legal counsel some flexibility to try to continue to - negotiate what the different responsibilities are. The concern is that if the condition is eliminated, the City still has a responsibility to the homeowners' to see that they are not put in a situation where the streets are not completed and the Association inherits the costs of completed them. In any subdivision, the City would require the developer to install the streets if it was needed to service his tract. It is not the City's intent to shift the entire responsibility to KSL, it should be the responsibility of the developer that was originally required to do the improvements. She is however, hesitant to approve a revised tract that itself is viewed in complete isolation. Her preference regarding the condition is the way is it written by the Public Works Department, although if the Commission is uncomfortable with it, the Commission should be aware that avenues are being addressed to solve the problem. 14. Commissioner Tyler asked where the construction access would be. Mr. Hosea stated it would be along Avenue 52 and paving plans are in for approval. Commissioner Tyler stated he believed it was wrong to lay the burden on this developer to do what others had failed to do. 15. Chairman Butler stated he does not want to approve this tract with unimproved streets serving this tract as this might be setting a precedent that states a builder can buy a portion of a property and because the streets are not completed by a developer, another piece of property is isolated with PC-13-98 12 Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1998 incomplete streets and access. Yet, he is concerned about holding up this project while the courts make the determination as to whose-responsibility it is to complete the streets. 16. Commissioner Kirk stated he agreed that KSL should not be required to pay for the default of another developer. If this were a development outside a development, they would be required to provide the access. He would suggest giving staff and the developer some flexibility regarding this access. 17. Commissioner Woodard stated that he had driven the street and in its present condition, it was workable. It was his opinion that this developer should be relieved of this burden. 18. Chairman Butler asked staff if this was acceptable. City Attorney Dawn HoneyWell stated this puts the entire burden on the litigation solution. If the Commission feels this is correct, she doesn't completely object, but she would prefer to have additional options. 19. Mr. Hosea stated he questioned Condition 49, and would like the builder to be given the flexibility regarding whether or not a swimming pool would be built. City Attorney stated there may be a problem in that a pool was represented to the property owners, however, it was not a requirement of their specific plan. Therefore, the Commission has the discretion to not require it to be a swimming pool. 20. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public comment portion of the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 21. Commissioner Tyler stated the utility companies needed to be updated on the map. Condition #49 the first word of the second line needed to be changed to "before" instead of "by" and delete the first four words, and delete the second paragraph. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this paragraph is needed to supply the maintenance workers with a restroom. 22. Commissioner Tyler suggested that the second sentence of Condition 38 be deleted. 23. Commissioner Woodard stated he agreed with the applicant's request to limit the requirements for pools by removing swimming pools from the condition with staff approval for landscaping and amenities. PC-13-98 13 Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1998 24. Chairman Butler stated he was concerned about the need for maintenance workers' restrooms. Staff suggested removing the first sentence of Condition #49 allowing it to read "restroom facilities will be provided and accessible to the golf course and homeowners' association workers." 25. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- 004, recommending to the' City Council approval of Tentative Tract 28719, subject to the Conditions of Approval, as modified. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Gardner rejoined the Commission. V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Sign Application 97-410; a request of Wells Fargo Bank (Quality Project Coordinating) for approval of a modified sign to the approved sign program for a bank mini-branch located in the Albertson's Supermarket. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa informed the Commission that staff had received a verbal request to continue this item to the next Planning Commission meeting. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of January 27, 1998. VII CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: Vii. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Co .mmunity Development Director Jerry Herman asked who would be attending the American Planning Association Forum on January 24, 1998, in Rancho Cucamonga. Commissioner Tyler, Gardner and Abels stated they would be attending. B. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked that all Commissioners attending the League of California Cities Conference in Long Beach in March, turn in their forms to staff as soon as possible. PC-13-98 14 Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1998 C. Chairman Butler asked for a volunteer to attend the Chamber Workshop meeting to be held January 23, 1998. Commissioner Gardner stated he would attend. D. Commissioner Abels commented that the north left turn lane on Jefferson Street is causing people to go into Home Depot at an angle. It is his understanding that the Public'Works Department is working on this. E. Commissioner Abels asked if a application had been received by International House of Pancakes for this site. Staff stated none had been received. F. Commissioner Abels asked ifa date had been set for a joint meeting with the City Council. Staff stated a date had not been set. Staff was preparing a tour of the hillside for the Council with a similar tour planned for the Commission in February. G. Commissioner Woodard asked about the landscaping for the art piece at the comer of Highway 111 and Washington Street. Staff stated it was in process. H. Commissioner Woodard asked about the lack of landscaping at the comer of Highway 111 and Jefferson Street. Staff stated this is the area designated for the City entry-sign. I. Staff informed the Commission they were still researching the information for the easements regarding the Rancho La Quinta sideyard setbacks. J. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of January 6, 1998. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Gardner to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on January 27, 1998, at 7:00 P.M. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:13 P.M. Unanimously approved. PC- 13-98 15