Loading...
2000 02 22 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA February 22, 2000 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Tyler tO lead the flag salute. B. Present-: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, ' and Chairman Tom Kirk. 'C. Staffpresent: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iofio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Start Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: . , A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of February 8, 2000. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 3, Item 6 states, "...is not viable as it is near a comer...". There being no further changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Buffer to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department RePort: 1. Commissioner Tyler asked the status of Site Development Permit 2000-667, development plans for a pad building at Plaza La Quinta as well as the Corporate Center. Staff stated it was tentatively scheduled for March 14, 2000. Commissioner Tyler asked when the retail buildings for the Corporate Center would be before the Commission. Staff stated it too would be before the Commission on March 14th. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Continued - Teritative Parcel Map 29613; a request of RJT Homes, LLC for approval of the subdivision of 0.58 acres into two residential and other common lots within the boundaries of Specific Plan 83-001. Parcel B proposes emergency and exit only C:LMy Documcnts\WPDOCS~C 2-22-20.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 access onto Calle Rondo, a public street located between Calle Rondo and Cypress Point Drive and south of Avenida Ultimo in La Quinta Fairways. 1. Chairman Kirk noted this was a continued public hearing and the public comment portion was open. He then asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the applicant is preparing a traffic study at the request of staff. As of this date it is not completed and the applicant, is anticipating its completion within a week and therefore, the applicant has requested a continuance to the Commission's meeting of March 14, 2000. 2. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern that this project was being continued again and suggested a limit be placed on the time extension so as not to cause a hardship on the residents. Staff stated the Commission could take action on the project at this meeting and not continue it, , 3. Commissioner Abels stated the Commission should review the traffic study in fairness to the applicant before taking any action. 4. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone would like to address the Commission at this time, but noted the project will be continued. 5. Mr. Seth Etinger, 78-720 Avenida La Fonda, stated that if this traffic study is made, will the residents who will be affected by the project, have an opportunity to review the study and prepare comments regarding it. Staff stated they are welcome to come to the Community Development Department to review the document. 6. Mr. Dane Hooper, 78-620 Avenida Tujunga, stated he too wOuld like to see the results of the traffic study. Also, one of the primary tactics for making application of an unfavorable project is to out stall the opposed. He requested the Commission see that this application go forward in a timely manner so the residents can make their views known. 7. Mr. Peter Rodholm, 50-640 Calle Paloma,.asked who is paying for the traffic study; is it RJT and if it is them, could they be in a conflict of interest. Staff stated the traffic study is submitted to the City and the City's traffic engineer reviews the document. The applicant, RJT, will select its traffic engineer and pay them to do the study. Mr. Rodholm stated this is a conflict of the interest. The City should have their own traffic firm prepare and submit the study. Chairman Kirk stated it is a general requirement that the applicant pay for the required reports. C:\My Documents\WPDOCSXPC 2-22-20.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 8. Mr. Doug G-illand 78-710 Naranja, stated the traffic study is only one of his concerns. If a traffic study is to be done, Calle Rondo should not be' the only street studied as other streets will be used as well. 9. Senior .Engineer Steve Speer stated they are counting the traffic on Calle Rondo right now with the understanding that other routes would considered as well. 'He has talked with the traffic engineer Selected and this is the same engineer the City is using for its own General Plan as well as the City of Indio, and is a highly recognized firm. 10. Mr. Gary Flanders, 51-345 Calle Paloma, asked how many homes axe proposed for this development. Staff stated 254 homes. Mr. Flanders stated he was a painting contractor specializing in the exterior painting for homeowners' associations. There are many other HOA much larger than this development who have only one gate. At PGA West, the Palmer side has one gate for approxirn'ately-600 homes; one gate for the Stadium course which covers two golf courses and approximately 800 homes. If other developments approved by the City have two or three times as many homes ' and only one access/exit, on a major thoroughfare' why does this developer of a small development need to have an access/exit gate in a residential neighborhood where there are children. 11. Mr. Jeffrey Withers, 50-790 Calle Guaymas, asked how many times the applicant would be allowed to continue this project. Why do the residents have to Continue to go thrOugh this process. This is not reasonable on the developers part and wanted to get this resolved. There is public outcry against this project. Chairman Kirk stated that everyone is interested in the results of the traffic study which will give some hue numbers on the impact of project. Mr. Weathers stated he is not interested in the traffic study; he wants to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood. Having more cars running in and out of there is nOt in. the interest of anybody at this meeting. This is why they are at the meeting. To keep this dragging on is unfair to the residents. · 12. Ms Kahiani I_;eaches, 50825 Calle Guaymas, stated she had heard this exit was proposed by the HOA. Why are they not at this meeting stating their case. They are at the meeting and do not want their neighborhood mined by ' their traffic. They want the privacy, seClusion they have now and do not want their traffic filtering through their neighborhood. 13. Mr. Frank Ogallinaro, 78-705 Avenida La Torres, stated they had purchased their home six months ago because it is quiet with no through traffic, so their kids could play safely in their yard or street, This traffic study is going to be C:LMy Documents\WPDOCSXPC 2-22-2~.wpd 3 · Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 slanted bemuse they will make it look anyway the developer wants it to look. Currently, the report is only for Calle Rondo; when will the report be done on the other streets. This means the Commission will missed an accurate count on what the impacts will be. 14. Mr. Dean Juist 50-795 Calle Quinto, stated he has a nine year old son who skateboards in front of his house and traffic is a concern to them. The levels of traffic fight now are a concem. They have visitors coming in and out as well as the residents. They asked City to put up a "Children Playing" sign, slow speed to 25mph six months, ago and the City refused. Now, the City wants to add more traffic to what is currently there, and his children are out there playing with their friends, one more car is one more too many. If the Commission approves this, they are angry enough to sue. So this is a warning. 15. Mr. Peter Rodholm, 50-640 Calle Paloma' stated they have had a number of problems in this area' such as height 'limitations, two story homes being built in a one story community, without, the community being told. The neighborhood is banded together and it is not unreasonable to ask the Commission to look at a secondary egress being placed on Calle Tampico and not into their community. There has been no'traffic metering on Calle Tujunga which is directly off the proposed exit. If everyone believes the traffic from this project will only go onto Calle Rondo, that is mistaken. The developer currently has two exits; a construction exit on Park Avenue and their main entrance. Why can't that second exit remain as their secondary egress? 16. Mr. Phillip Bruce, 50-800 Calle Quinto, asked if anyone was there representing RJT Homes, or the homeowners' association, it seems that this is a pretty common answer that nobody is at the meeting representing these people, but the Commission. · 17. Mr. Joe Garza, 50-550 Calle Quinto, stated there were empty lots that will be built on.in their area and traffic will also be generated by those lots as well. 18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to continue the public hearing on Tentative Parcel Map 29613 to .March 28, 2000, with the knowledge that this would'be the final continuance. Unanimously approved. 19. Commissioner Robbins asked if the traffic study was requested by staff. Staff stated it was. Commissioner Robbins stated that because the report was requested by staff, the continuance was not necessarily the applicants fault. C:~vly Documents\WPDOCSLPC 2-22-20.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 B. Site Development Permit 99-666; a request of Stamko Development Company for approval of development plans for an auto retail center located southeast of Highway 111 and Adams Street intersection. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the COmmunity Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked about the curved architectural feature. Staff stated it was a curved roof or canopy for aesthetics only. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Planning Commission was considering the signs at this time. Staff noted the sign program proposed. 3. Commissioner Butler stated the architecture feature adds character to the building rather than square concrete buildings they see too often. It is a good use of imagination on the part of the applicant. 4. Chairman Kirk questioned the circulation system on Auto Center Way as the right of way appeared to be pinched in. He asked the purpose of the indentatiOn. Staff stated it is a traffic device to slow traffic down. 5. chairman Kirk commended the applicant on the landscaping plans and the minimal use of water; but, why the use of tuff in the retention basins. Are there any other options? Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that as long as it is not flowing water, another substance cOuld be used2 The City does have a good retention basin in front of the new Desert Sands Unified School District Administration Center that is not turfed. 6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms Christine Clarke, Stamko Development Company, stated this was an exciting project with the auto related uses in conjunction with the auto dealers. In regard to the turf area, in front of the auto dealers they are using a variety of different materials as they do not want to use turf overall, but the City has been requesting it. 7. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Buffer asked if there was some other alternative to the use of grass. Ms. Clarke stated they have done some different planting off of Highway 111. · C:(My Documents\WPDOCSXPC 2-22-20.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes . February 8, 2000 8. Commissioner Abels asked if they have prospective tenants. Ms. Clarke stated.yes and expect to have it filled within the next two months and open in a year. 9. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to speak on this project. There being no further discussion, the public participation portion .of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 10. Commissioner Robbins stated one good reason for having grass in the bottom of a retention basin is to keep the ground from sealing up. Grass allows the water to percolate. 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by CommissiOners Butler/Abels to adopt Resolution 2000-006, approving Site Development Permit 99-666, subject to the Finding and Conditions of Approvgl as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Buffer, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. C. Tentative Tract Map 29657; a request of Norman Estates II, LLC for a recommendation' of approval to re-subdivide 58 single family lots, a street lot, a common area lot, and a golf course lot to adjust existing lot lines and provide gated entries located on Medallist Drive and National Drive, between Kingston Heath and Tiburon Drive within the Norman Golf Course. 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Start Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. 'There being no questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant · would like to address the Conumss~on. Mr. J. R. Morrow, President of the R C Hobbs, who will be the contractor on this project, stated they agree with all the conditions as written. 3. There b'eing no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to speak on this project. There being no further discussion, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. C:\My Documents\WPDOCSXPC 2-22-20.wpd 6 - · Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- 007, recommending approval of Tentative Tract 29657, subject to the Finding and Conditions of Approval as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Buffer, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. .' D. Tentative Tract Map '~5719 (Revision #2); a request of Century-Cromwell Communities fox a recommendation of approval to: 1) allow removal of the existing mature Eucalyptus trees from behind single family lots 38-42; and, 2) amend the final map to eliminate a City landscape maintenance easemem fi.om a 70 single family lot subdivision on 17.6 acres located on the west side of Dune Palms Road south of Desert Stream Drive. 1. Commissioner Buffer excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest and left the dias. : 2. Chairman Kirk 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. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Marty Buffer, representing Century-Cromwell Communities, gave a history of how the request had come to be. 'She further stated they have completed the grading and were willing to trim the trees until staff requested an arborist review the trees. The arborist recommended that only a certified arborist touch the trees due to the long range liability they would have with the trees. His concerns were for the location of the trees in relation to the four adjoining homes. His letter is included with the report. Based upon his recommendation, the area set aside for the maintenance easement of the trees is too small and would result in having to hand trim the trees. He also indicated that the HOA would have to spend $15,000 to $20,000 every other year to maintain the trees. As the cost is so exorbitant, most HOAs will not spend the money and the trimming is never done again. Then the tree limbs fall off and someone is liable. In addition to the location, they are now putting in a retaining wall around the comer, behind Lot 39. He stated the Eucalyptus trees have a large root mass and as soon as you comet the retaining wall it will probably kill all the trees anyway and they will either fall to the north or south. If the tree C:~My Documents\WPDOCS~PC 2-22-20.wpd 7 · Planning Commission Minutes - February 8, 2000 becomes brittle or their root base dies, they axe prone to fall over. Based on this kno~vledge, she submitted the information to the City because they do not want to pass on a known liability to a .HOA. If the trees were removed from behind Lots 38;42, it would leave 11-12 trees around the retention basin area which would not be so costly to maintain. The second issue is that when the map was recorded the maintenance easement was recorded in favor of the City of La Quinta and they are asking it be transferred to the HOA. She would also recommend the easement behind Lots 38-42 be dropped because it is a long range liability responsibility. They would prefer to retain the trees, but in a safer location. ., 3. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Abels asked if the trees in front of the retention basin would remain. Ms. Butler stated 11 would remain. Commissioner Abels asked what the long range cost would be to maintain the trees. Ms. Butler stated an annual trimming would cost $20,000 because they would have to be hand trimmed. In the retention basin it wOuld be about half that cost because they can use machines. · _ 4. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Commission agreed to this request, how would the lots at the north end be reshaped. Ms. Butler explained it would be a 3:1 slope, maybe remove the wall and the easement, and put a retaining wall behind Lots 38 and 39 which will cause a grade differential that would be part of the lot. The' easement would become a part of Lot "H" and maintained by the HOA. She further stated there would have to be a revision to the grading plan to create the slope. Commissioner Tyler asked if it wasn't possible to gain access to the trees on the north side from the retention basin and CVWD well site. Ms. Butler stated that is not there property and they can't obligate the HOA to go someone else's property. 5. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to speak on this project. Mr. Scan Huber, 79-375 Desert Stream Drive stated they liked the trees and one of the reasons they purchased their home was because of the trees. At that time they Were told the trees would remain and no modification would have to be made to his yard. The wall will need to be removed is his wall. They specifically picked that lot due to its uniqueness. They have family members who paid $1,000 to have their 30 Eucalyptus trees trimmed.. He does not believe CVWD will have a problem with anyone using their property to trim the trees. These trees are also habitat to a certain amount of wildlife and that cannot be replaced. When the. project was originally approved by the City Council, they expressed their desire to keep the trees and COuncil required them to be retained. You cannot replace these trees. Century could have re-mapped the site before it was recorded. ,~.,~ ,.. r~ ....... **xwpr~OC.q\PC 2'22-20.wod 8 , Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 6. Commissioner Tyler asked if anyone had received a notification of this hearing. Mr. Huber stated he had not. 7. Mr. Jim Brenneis 79-365 Desert Stream Drive, agreed With Mr. Huber, and stated he was the first resident on Desert Stream Drive. He was not into the uniqueness of Mr. Huber's lot. He has lived there through all the storms and have yet to see one branch fall from those trees. They purchased there because of the trees. Their concern is the beauty of the trees and the wildlife. Poor planning on Cenmry's part does not constitute raping the land. They should have planned the site differently. · 8. There being no further discussion, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 9. Commissioner Tyler stated he personally believes the arborist report is exaggerated. The report talks about the grading in the furore tense and yet the grading is completed and there has been some interruption of the root system. He believes access could be gained through the CVWD property. The closest house is 52-55 feet from the rear lot line and the trees are beyond that so he does not believe there is any danger of a tree falling on a house exists. During the previous public hearings concern was raised by both the Planning Commission and City Council regarding these historic trees and both bodies reqUired the applicant to keep the trees. He does not share the concern as shared by the applicant. The City should hire their own arborist and get a second opinion. He has no objection with the request to.change the ' easement title. 10. Commissioner Robbins stated he agrees with Commissioner Tyler. Century was given direction to keep the trees and they have a responsibility to do so, even if they have to lose four units. All of the trees can be accessed either from th6 retention basin on this project, or from the retention basin on the adjoining project. These trees are extremely unique. He was leaning toward the safety concerns and to replacing them with. some type of safe trees. Now, it appears Century did not do their homework and it is essentially their problem. The Planning Commission has more of a responsibility to the neighbors to the north and the preservation of the trees. 11. Commissioner Abels stated he agreed with getting a second opinion on the trees as he is concerned about the liability issue. He would like to continue the project until a second opinion is obtained. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she has a great concern about the liability when there is an opinion from a certified arborist that there is a liability. With all the factual issues on the record, the fact that the City enjoys the historical trees might not weigh well if someone were to get hurt or sustain a lot of property damage. She also agrees that because the only reason these trees are kept there against ,-,.~ A,, r~ ....... t~xWPDC~.S\PC 2-22-20.w~d 9 Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 the will of the current property would be a City condition on building in this particular way, the City would be named if there were any damage to property, or personal injury. If the concern is as great as the developer is proposing, then rather than just amending the map to look at these items, maybe it needs to be amended to look at how these lots are being configured. With those opinions on the record, it is hard to ignore them. 11. Mr. Brenneis stated that if the trees are left and they lose 4 units, that means they may be able to move their lots down and he will not have two backyards butting up to his back yard. 12. Commissioner Tyler stated there is not much you can do to see that houses line Up with the units they back up to. In reference to the arborist report, there is nothing in the report that states the houses are in jeopardy of having the trees falling on them. Secondly, the City conditioned the applicant to keep the trees prior to them mapping the lots, and maybe it is not too late to look at this. 13. Chairman Kirk asked Ms. Butler to address the concerns. Ms. Butler stated' the main concern is that this is an approved tract map, grading plan, and an approvdd loan to construct 70 units and unless the City would want to financially assist in making changes, it would be a real hardship on them. If the City wants a second arborist report, they have no objection. It is a recorded map and the City will bear the responsibility if the trees remain. 14. Mr. Huber stated Century was not concerned about the liability of the' trees when they built his.house. In fact it was a selling point. They can disperse the cost through their other projects to lose the four houses. 15. Chairman Kirk asked if a cOvenant could be applied to. the lots that endemnifies the HOA, developer, and City. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated you could .try to obtain releases from the property owners or prospective property owners, but the problem is how You could make sure they continue on to new property owners. They cannot mn with the land, but she is not sure how that release would even hold up. 16, There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to recommending approval of the change to the maintenance easement responsibility. · ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ~ ,- _._ Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 17. Chairman Kirk asked if the Commission could hire an arborist for a second Study. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the Planning Commission could adopt a Resolution approving the request to change the maintenance easement to the HOA and deny the removal of the trees and make a recommendation to the City Council that a second arborist study be done. It could be appealed to the City Council and they could make such a requiremem. Discussion followed as to the Commission's different options. 21. Commissioner Robbins asked if they could condition the applicant to pay for a second arborist study the City would commission. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it is not the City's standard to require more than one study. Chairman Kirk stated this was done by the applicant and not at the request of the City. Discussion followed regarding the process of having studies are required' and the condition of the trees. 22. Commissioner Abels asked what would happen if the City Council does not want a second report. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the Commission is a recommending body to the City Council and they are the final authority and can do as they chose. 23. Ms. BUtler stated they are willing to do the trimming, but'do not want the liability, but if the City wants to accept it, they will keep the trees.. The report does state the trees are in good shape and it is not known what will happen. 24. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-008 denying the request to remove the Eucalyptus trees and approving the reconveyance of the maintenance easement for Tentative Tract 25719 (Revision #2), subject to the Finding and Conditions of Approval as amended: · a. Condition #5: Deleted. b. Condition #6: The landscape maintenance easement along the north side of Lot "H" and Lots 38-42 shall be reconveyed to the HOA. c. Adding all conditions of the previous approval referred to .in Condition #3. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. 25. ' It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robins to .adopt Minute Motion 2000-003 recommending to the City, Council a second arborist study be required. Unanimously approved with Commissioner Butler being absent. C.'\Mv Documcnts\WPDOCS~PC 2-22-20.wpd 1 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 Commissioner Butler rejoined the Commission. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2000-668; a request of the Medallist Golf Developments for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for four new prototype residential units located on the north side of Airport Boulevard, east of Madison Street within the Norman Golf coUrSe. 1. Chairman Kirk asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Start Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the community Development Department. 2.' Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked if there was a sidewalk on the interior streets. Staff stated a sidewalk would be on one side of the street. When the road reaches the "L',. it switches to the other side of the street. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked whY there were two different tract numbers in this and the previous tract report. Staff stated it is the same location and will eventually have one tract number, .TT 29657. · 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Kirk asked if the anyone would like to speak regarding this project. Mr. J. R.' Morrow, representing R C Hobbs Company, stated he agrees with the recommendations, findings, and conditions. 5. Commissioner Abels complimented Mr. Morrow on the presentation. 6. Commissioner Tyler asked how the option for the second floor would be built. Mr. Morrow stated it would be face toward the. interior of the house with a stairwell leading up to it. It would only be visible from the interior and rear of the house, rather than the street elevation. 17. Commissioner Tyler stated he could not find any correlation with the landscape palette and the numbers on the plans. Mr. Morrow stated the landscaping plan would be submitted at a later date. 8. Commissioner Tyler asked if when the units are plotted, no two same elevations would be next to each other. Mr. Morrow stated they have the , ability to customize the plans to keep each one unique. 9. There I~eing no further discussion, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation and oPened the issue for Commission discussion. c'.\klv Dnc.ments\WPDOCSLPC 2-22-20.wpd 12 Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 10. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2000-004 approving Site Development Permit 2000-668, subject to the Findings and ConditiOns of Approval as submitted. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Abels reviewed the City Council meeting of February 15, 2000. · B. Commissioner Abels asked when the Arts Foundation project would be before the Commission. Staff stated it had not been scheduled yet as it was still in the review process. IX. 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 the next regular meeting of the PIanning. Commission to be held March 14, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:02 P.M. on February 22, 2000. Respectfully submitted, ' tive Secretary City f6.f.J~ Quinta,'Calif°mia C:WIy Documents\WPDOCS~PC 2-22-20.wpd 13