2001 02 27 PC Minutes MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampi¢o, La Quinta, CA
February 27, 2001 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 Robbins who asked Commissioner Butler to lead the
flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert
Tyler, and Chairman Robbins.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant
City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior
Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Stan Sawa, Planning Consultant
Nicole Criste, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any' corrections to the Minutes of
February 13, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 9, Item//14 be
corrected to read, "...Federal Communications Act". There being no
further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Kirk/Abels to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None.
V. PRESENTATIONS: None.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Tentative Tract Map 30056; a request of Keith International for Chapman
Golf Development for Certification of an Addendum to a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and the subdivision of 5.39
acres into 13 residential lots located at the south terminus of Washington
Street within the Tradition Club taking access from Del Gato Drive.
G:\WPDOCS\PC2-27-O1.wpd ]
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Staff requested this item be continued to the
Planning CommiSsion meeting of March 27, 2001, as requested by
the applicant.
2. There being no discUssion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Tyle.r to continue this item to March 13,
2001. Unanimously approved.
B. Environmental Assessment 2000-411, General Plan Amendment 2000-
075, Zone Change 2001-067. Specific Plan 2001-051. Village Use
Permit 2001-007 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 30043; a request of
KSL Development Corporation for 1) Certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact; 2) change lands currently
designated as Medium High Density Residential to Village Commercial,
and review design guidelines and development standards for a
commercial/office, distribution center and 227 whole ownership single
family dwellings with the leasing potential of 365 guest rooms; 3) review
of development plans for the residential/guest room and office buildings;
and 4) the subdivision of 33 acres into 1 6 numbered and 17 lettered lots
for the property located at the northeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and
Calle Tampico.
1. Chairman Robbins 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 Robbins stated he understood they were requesting 38
feet in height within the Specific Plan. Staff stated that the
Specific Plan was silent as to the height limitations within the
Image Corridor and therefore the Zoning Code would govern and
that a 22 foot requirement would apply along Calle Tampi¢o. So
the applicant is speaking to the 38 feet outside of the Image
Corridor within the residential. Staff clarified that the office
building is 27 feet in height and the tower element is the only part
that extends beyond the 22 feet.
3. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Butler asked if this type of building structure
proposed for the office was allowed in the City. His concern was
whether or not this buildings ability to be temporary would be an
issue. Staff stated yes, the building structure was allowed and the
applicant could explain it in more detail.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
4. Commissioner Tyler asked if these were the same modulars that
were currently being used by KSL Development, . Corporation at
PGA West. Staff stated no and the applicant w6uld explain the
construction during their presentation. Commissioner Tyler asked
when the applicant was required to remove the modulars at PGA
West. Staff stated June, 2001.
5. Commissioner Kirk asked if this project met the Water Efficiency
Ordinance. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Kirk asked that the
Commission see the calculations to understand how a project that
devotes most of its landscaping to a lake meets a Water Efficiency
Ordinance. Staff stated the applicant has the calculations.
Commissioner Kirk asked why the Mitigation Monitoring Report
was included at this time and not previously. Staff stated it
should have been included with all reports and would be included
in future reports. Commissioner Kirk questioned why it was
necessary. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated it was
reviewed by staff and the analysis concluded that the Mitigation
-- Monitoring Plan should be attached for the Commission's review
and approval along with the required environmental assessment.
He would prepare a more detailed explanation to present at their
next meting.
6. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like staff to explain the
phasing plan in regards to the corporate office and the reason
stated for its priority, secondly would be the parking, thirdly
residential, and lastly retail/commercial. The Commission is being
asked to approve Phases I and III and not II, and he would like
staff to explain the timing and why they were not approving Phase
II. In addition, he would like to know from the applicant if and how
staff's recommendation on reducing the height of the structure
affects the residential component of the plan; can you get three
stories into a 35 foot structure.
7. Commissioner Tyler stated he did not understand why the
Commission was only reviewing the architectural design and site
plan for the residential/guest rooms and the office components.
Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated the design of the
-- individual c,omponents need to be reviewed as part of individual
Village Use Permit (VUP) and it is the applicant's choice at this
'time to only submit VUP's for the residential and office
components, not for the others which will be brought to the
Commission at a later date.
G:\WPDOCS\PC2-27-01 .wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
8. Commissioner Kirk stated the phasing plan suggests I-office, II-
parking, III-residential and yet the applicant is only submitting
Phases I and III. The phasing diagram does not agree. Planning
Consultant Nicole Criste clarified they are Planning Area numbers
rather than Phasing Plans. Commissioner Kirk stated they are on
the Phase Plan pages. It appears that Phases I and II have very
little to do with Phase III as the circulation is not tied. There is a
common wall or boundary, but the projects do not appear to be
interrelated and maybe the applicant could explain why they chose
to take this direction.
9. Commissioner Tyler questioned the street vacation status as it
was to be tied with the Santa Rosa Plaza project and he was
wondering whether or not the two could be tied together. Also
the calculation of parking spaces per square feet for the retail
component which cannot have restaurants, but in the Specific Plan
where they list the types of uses that may take place in the
residential component, restaurants are also included. It seems the
same guidelines should be applied to Part A as it is in Part B. The
same thing applies when you are placing percentage limits on how
much of the office component can be used for meeting rooms. A
similar percentage should be applied to all the non-residential uses
that can be accommodated in the residential component. There
seems to be an inconsistency as to how they are applied. Planning
Consultant Nlcole Criste explained the restaurant use in the
commercial component is proposed as a principal use. The retail
uses that are proposed in the residential section are proposed as
either ancillary or supporting to the guest services and therefore
are treated differently in the two sections of the plan.
Commissioner Tyler asked if this implied that a non-guest cannot
use those facilities and therefore does not need to park anywhere.
It is confusing why the differentiation. Planning Consultant Nicole
Criste stated it does not imply that a non-guest would not be using
the facility, but just as a calculation for a hotel would be based on
the number of rooms and that calculation factors in the potential
for guests coming in addition to the guests staying in the hotel
rooms, guests using the facilities at the hotel in addition to the
guests are factored into the flat rate that it is a parking space
requirement. Commissioner Tyler asked if it would be appropriate
to put a limit on the amount of ancillary floor space that can be
devoted to ancillary items. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste
G :\WPDOCS\PC 2-2 7-01. wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2OO1
stated the Zoning Code defines the limits between principal uses
and ~n~ill~rv u~. Commissioner Tyler a~ked that Condition
3.A. 1. should be amended to state the "potential" street vacation.
Also references to garages should be deleted or addressed.
10. Commissioner Kirk stated that on Page 2.3 and 2.4 of the Specific
Plan it shows the existing land use and zoning designations as VC
on the southern property, why the project and its neighbor to the
east are zoned differently as implied by a different color shown
within the Specific Plan; what is the difference? Staff stated there
is no difference.
1 1. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked
if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Forrest
Haag, representing KSL Development Corporation, gave a
presentation on the project.
1 2. Commissioner Abels asked what the rationale was for using this
type of building structure for the office instead of permanent
structure. Mr. Haag stated timing. All the concepts are coming
together at the same time and with the time constraints to move
the corporate offices from PGA West to this new site, the
corporate buildings are being built off-site and will be ready for
placement in order to meet that time constraint. Commissioner
Abels asked if they did not have the time constraints would they
use the same building structure. Mr. Haag stated yes, because
they are basically being built the same way. There is an economy
factor to having the building built off-site while they are preparing
the site where they can control the labor, weather, material
supplies, etc. Mr. Hosea, KSL Development Corporation, stated
they are using this construction type not only due to the speed but
also because of the quality. Commissioner Abels asked about the
longevity factor. Mr. Hosea stated it would be the same as a stick
building. It is their intention to occupy these buildings forever.
1 3. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a problem with semantics.
The Code refers to temporary interim buildings and that.is being
applied here, but seems to be an inappropriate use of those terms.
Planning Consultant Nicole stated the Code addresses the uses in
the zOne, not the structure. This is not intended to be a temporary
structure.
G:\WPDOCS\PC2-27-01 .wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
14. Commissioner Butler asked if the distribution center would be
modular and what would be the use of the building. Will it bring
more traffic into that area which will need more parking and the
report states there is more than adequate parking being provided?
Mr. Hosea stated there are currently 630 parking spaces. They
are replacing the 230 parking spaces for employees now parking
in the interim lot at the southeast corner of Avenue 50 and
Eisenhower Drive. The distribution center is planned to replace the
one at the La Quinta Hotel which will help the traffic circulation
problems currently at the Hotel.
1 5. Commissioner Kirk stated the design is good, but the concern is
with the quality of the building. Why are they using this type of
building for themselves and not for the products they are selling
Mr. Hosea stated market acceptance would not allow this.
Commissioner Kirk asked about the two foot height reduction and
what impacts will this have on their residential product. Can they
get a three story building in under 35 feet? Mr. Hosea stated yes,
and it does have a significant impact because the only place you
can get it is out of the plate line. They are taking their plates from
10 or 11 and making them 9 or 10 to accomplish the one or two
feet. They have pushed the buildings back out of the Image
Corridor setback and are asking for the additional height.
Commissioner Kirk asked if the residential component is now
Phase II, is this a change in the corporate policy. Mr. Hosea stated
it was an oversight on their part. They do intend to build the
office building and parking lot this summer. The buyer of the
residential product is also intending to begin construction this
summer. They will probably start all three phases at the same
time.
16. Commissioner Butler asked about the additional ten feet for
architectural features. Mr. Hosea stated they would remove that
in hopes of having the 37 feet. They want the proposed office
tower to break up the roof lines.
1 7. Commissioner Abels asked if they could live with the 35 feet. Mr.
Hosea stated they are hoping for the 37 feet. Commissioner Abels
stated he has concern with the 37 feet.
18. Commissioner Tyler stated the ten foot height footnote for
architectural features appears on three charts in the Specific Plan.
Would they be willing to waive that footnote in all cases? Mr.
G:\WPDOCS\PC2-27-01 .wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
Hosea stated that allowance is on all their documents.
Commissioner Tyler asked where the 37 feet is measured from.
It appears there is a berm and will take the building above the
'ground level. Staff stated that it would be measured per the Code
requirement which is the finish grade at the base of the wall. Mr.
Chris Bergh stated the existing ground is at elevation of 38 or 39
and they are putting pads level at elevation 42. The entrance off
Eisenhower, the existing street is about 44.5 so they are 2.5 feet
below Eisenhower Drive and on Calle Tampico the existing
elevation at the intersection is about 44, so they are a couple feet
below that as well. They have taken care of the flood issue but
are still below the exterior streets.
19. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment on
this project.
20. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there
was any Commission discussion.
21. Commissioner Kirk stated he supported the design, but he has
concerns with the construction of the corporate offices. An even
greater concern is with the lake. Did the City go through the
Water Efficiency Ordinance and do the calculations? Staff stated
no, it was done by the applicant. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff
determined whether or not the applicant's request meets the Code.
Staff stated they have shown us a draft of meeting this
requirement and the Code requires them to submit the final
calculations prior to issuance of a grading permit.
22. Chairman Robbins stated he too does not understand how the use
of the lake can meet the Water Efficiency Ordinance. Could staff
give a presentation on how the Ordinance is applied to such a
project so the Commission can understand how this can work.
23. Commissioner Kirk stated he has a problem with our Image
Corridor and it appears there is a conflict. With the Village
Commercial we are trying to encourage a pedestrian feel,
relegating the automobile and then the Image Corridor does exactly
the opposite by pushing structures away from right of way and
have lots of landscaping and encourage parking lots along the
G:\WPDOCS\PC2-27-O1.wpd '7
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
street frontage. The update of the General Plan offers us an
opportunity to take a look at our Image Corridors. Where an Image
Corridor and the intent of the Village are in conflict, he would
prefer that the Village be the priority. He does not want to see the
'Village become a parking lot. He would prefer to give the
applicant some latitude to allow other structures instead of so
much asphalt within the parking lot behind the distribution center.
He supports the height request of the applicant and in fact he
would approve an additional one or two feet for architectural
projections for the residential portion of the project.
24. Commissioner Abels stated he supports staff's recommendation.
It is a great project and he supports the construction of the
modular building.
25. Commissioner Butler stated he would like to hear from the
contractor of the modular building.
26. Chairman Robbins reopened the public hearing. Mr. Jack Di
Benedetto, representing Williams Scotsman, gave a presentation
on the modular construction.
27. Commissioner Butler asked who completes the tenant
improvements. Mr. Benedetto stated they will. The exterior and
roof elevations will be completed, on site. Because of the speed
the impact on the community is less.
28. Chairman Robbins closed the public hearing.
29. Commissioner Butler stated he agrees with Commissioner Kirk on
the setback and as far as the height of these buildings and the
setbacks, he does not think two feet is an issue.
30. Commissioner Tyler stated he agrees with comments as stated by
the other Commissioners. He agrees with Commissioner Kirk that
it does not make sense in the total scheme of things to put the
parking lot in front o'f the building to meet a height restriction. As
far as a tower at 35 or .37 feet as an architectural element he
would have no objection as long as the extra ten feet for
chimneys, etc., are deleted.
G :\WPDO CS\PC 2-2 7-01. wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
31. Chairman Robbins stated he supports the project and has no
objection to the 37 feet. He agrees that not having the parking in
the front is a much better design. He is neutral on the 35 feet for
the residential. He is concerned about the word in the Specific
Plan as it refers to the Landscaping Ordinance at it sort of states
it will comply with the Landscape Ordinance, by stating "...by
keeping with the City's desire to promote water efficient
landscaping .... " It still does not state they will comply. Staff
noted the environmental mitigation requires that they comply, so
the Specific Plan becomes irrelevant. Chairman Robbins stated he
agrees with the parking in the rear and has no objection to the
height of the tower on the office and residential units.
32. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-017 recommending Certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental
Assessment 2001-411, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT' None.
ABSTAIN' None.
33. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-018 recommending
approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-075, as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN' None.
34. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-019 recommending
approval of Zone Change 2001-067, as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
35. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-020 recommending
approval of Specific Plan 2001-051, as amended'
G :\WPD OC S\PC2-2 7-01. wpd 0
Planning Commission Minutes --
February 27, 2001
a. Condition #3.A. 1. Add the word "Potential" street vacation.
b. Condition #6.A. 1. Calle Tampico: delete the sentence "The
cost of the median modifications shall be reimbursed from
the Development Impact Fee fund in an amount not to
exceed the budgeted amount."
c. Condition #1 5: Wherever "are encouraged" are used in the
Specific Plan it shall be eliminated
d. Condition #20: Residential component shall be 37 feet. The
"*" in the Table on Page 3.5 shall be amended to read, "...
shall be permitted to extend up to two feet..."
e. Condition #21: Office component maximum height shall be
22 feet. The "*" in the Table on Page 3.12 shall be
amended to read, "...shall be permitted to extend up to five
feet above the maximum structure height."
f. Condition #24: All reference to garages in the Specific Plan
shall be deleted.
g. Condition #29: The Specific Plan shall be amended to
include the statement, "All landscaping plans shall conform
to the city's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance." '
h. Condition #37: changed to 28.b.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: Commissioner Abels. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
36. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Kirk to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-021 recommending
approval of Village Use Permit 2001-007, as submitted.
a. Condition #9: The maximum allowed' height in the
residential component of the project shall be 37 feet. The
"*" in the Table on Page 3.5 shall be amended to read,
"...shall be permitted to extent up two feet above the
maximum structure height." The maximum allowed height
in the office component of the project shall be 22 feet. The
Specific Plan shall be amended to reflect this standard. The
"*" in the Table on Page 3.12 shall be amended to read,
"...shall be permitted to extend up five feet above the
maximum structure height."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: Commissioner Abels. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC2-27-Ol.wpd ! 0
Planning Commission'Minutes
February 27, 2001
37. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-022 recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 30043, as amended'
a. Condition//7: a. 1. Add the word "potential" street vacation.
b. Condition//40.A. 1. Calle Tampico: Delete, "The cost of the
median modifications shall be reimbursed from the
Development Impact Fee fund in a amount not to exceed
the budgeted amount.
ROLL CALL: AYES' Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT- None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Chairman Robbins recessed the meeting at 8:42 p.m. and reconvened at 8:49 p.m.
C. Environmental Assessment 89-110 and Tract Map 24230, Amendment
//1.; a request of The Spanos Company for Certification of an Addendum
to a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and the
creation of a left turn access from Washington Street onto Lake La
Quinta Drive located at the east side of Washington Street, north of
Avenue 48.
1. Chairman Robbins 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. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer stated that in 1990's when this was first submitted
and revised, the General Plan only allowed full turn movements at
half mile intersections. Since that time there have been several
proposals on this site and each time the applicant has wanted an
improved turning movement at Lake La Quinta Drive and staff has
consistently denied it. Over the years circulation has become an
issue that staff has had to address. On Major Arterials staff has
been allowing left turns in with no left turns out. The left turn out
is always the most dangerous and would only be allowed with a
signal. The applicant at this time is proposing a lengthy left turn
in pocket which would allow enough time to make a safe left turn.
This has been done similarly at Simon Drive and Washington
Street, Fred Waring Drive near Jefferson Street as well as Avenue
50 near Jefferson Street. In regard to allowing the Arts
Foundation a left turn in, it could be accomplished as the two
entrances are off-set. Staff noted that Condition //13 needs to
have the last sentence deleted.
G:\WPDOCS\PC2-27-01 .wpd ] ]
Planning Commission Minutes -
February 27, 2001
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain the traffic circulation.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked if the street stub in front of the Church
on the west side of Washington Street will remain. Staff stated
the Church is currently putting together their development plans
and anticipates this going away. Staff anticipates a retention
basin may be constructed at this location.
4. Chairman Robbins asked how this lines up with the Art Foundation
across the street.
5. Commissioner Butler asked how much of the median would have
to be modified to accommodate this. Staff stated the median is
1 8 feet wide and they will be taking 1 2 of the 1 8 feet and turning
that into asphalt with the turn pocket being 256 feet long.
6. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Ms. Margo Williams, Mainiero Smith and Associates,
stated they concur with staff's recommendation.
7. Commissioner Tyler questioned a letter that had been received
from a resident that is protesting the proposed change. Ms.
Williams stated they have not received any comment from any of
the residents.
8. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment.
9. Mr. Marshall Italiano, Homeowners' Association President, stated
he had read the staff report and they had some concerns. They
are not against the commercial buildings. Their concern is Caleo
Bay. 47th Avenue heading south is a left turn and another left turn
is at 48th Avenue. That traffiC from both those streets is diverted
east to Caleo Bay. There are only two access points out of their
development for some 250 residents. As commercial development
is coming, all that traffic is going to be on Caleo Bay. Their issues
are for safety, environment, and their lake. What impact will these
developments have on their lake? In working with the Bank
proposed for 48th Avenue, they are providing them with
landscaping plans, drainage plans, deep wells, etc. to take care of
their project. There are no speed limits or parking on Caleo Bay.
As that property is developed, their concern is for safety of their
residents and parking on Caleo Bay. They would like to see Caleo
Bay posted for "no parking".
G :\WPDOCS\PC2-27-O 1 .wpd ]. 2
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
10. There being no further public comment, the public participation
portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission
discussion.
11. Commissioner Abels stated he can understand Mr. Italiano's
concerns, but believes the City will resolve those issues.
12. Commissioner Kirk stated he did not think this would be an issue,
but if he understands the Lake La Quinta resident's concerns, they
are very broad concerns regarding development on this strip. He
asked Mr. Italiano if he did or did not oppose the request.
13. Chairman Robbins re-opened the pubic hearing to allow Mr. Italiano
to answer the question.
14. Mr. Italiano stated that as far as the left turn lane onto Lake La
Quinta Drive, their concern is that the left turn lane will only allow
traffic to come down Lake La Quinta Drive and only enter the
south property, not the north property. He supports the left turn
lane as long as the egress into the complex is from Lake La Quinta
Drive and not Caleo Bay.
15. Chairman Robbins closed the public hearing.
16. Commissioner Butler stated he sees no objection as it opens the
area for commercial development. There will not be as .much
traffic on Caleo Bay as the entrance on Lake La Quinta Drive will
keep people off Caleo Bay.
17. Commissioner Tyler stated he could not support this request. The
circulation pattern for Lake La Quinta was put into place when it
was built more than a decade ago and provided access off 47th
Avenue and 48th Avenue and Caleo Bay as well as the right turn
in and out on the stub street. Lake La Quinta Drive, however,
does not go directly into an entrance. You come into Caleo Bay
and turn right or left depending on which one of the other streets
you wish to use. In addition to those two entrances you also have
a third full turn access off of Adams Street and that is more than
some developments have. Washington Street being a Major
Arterial which according to the General Plan constitutes the core
of our circulation system and the main function is to provide a high .
level of mobility for through traffic with restricted access to
adjacent properties. Subsequent to the initial implementation of
the circulation plan for this project, it has been greatly improved
by the addition of signals at Washington Street and 48th Avenue
G:\WPDOCS\PC2-27-O1.wpd ] 3.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
and Washington Street and 47th Avenue. Both intersections have
protected left turns. This proposed left turn would provide an
unprotected left turn which is about the most dangerous type of
traffic movement that there is. In the middle of a half mile long
block of traffic which currently moves at or above the posted
speed limit of 50 mph. This poses an extreme hazard. What we
are talking about is a possible benefit for a few people to save a
few minutes getting to the commercial area and a grave risk for
the people that normally travel Washington Street. Another
concern is the proximity of the stub tail end of Washington Street
that comes out from the Church, that is sufficiently close to this
proposed left turn. People will invariably exit from there and make
a sudden swerving motion to cross the three lanes of traffic to get
into this left turn lane to either go into Lake La Quinta or make a
U-turn to go north on Washington Street. They have protected left
turn lanes now which gives the safest left turn possible to get into
this area. This proposed left turn does nothing to enhance the exit
or access for the Lake La Quinta residents. As pointed out it is
purely for the benefit of the future commercial area which cannot
take their access off of Washington Street. This is potentially a
very dangerous proposal and he cannot vote for it. That area will
be further compounded by the entrances and exits for the Arts
Foundation site across the street and unknown access changes for
the Church. Furthermore, the City has invested heavily in that
median over the last year or so and to tear it up now that the
landscaping is just getting started would be a travesty that our
City does not need. He commented on some corrections in the
staff report and resolutions.
18. Chairman Robbins stated he disagrees with Commissioner Tyler.
He thinks this will take a substantial amount of traffic off of Caleo
Bay. While it has left turns across Washington Street, if we leave
it where people go down to 48th Avenue there will just be left
turns across 48th Avenue or U-turns at Washington Street. He has
never been a proponent of U-turns on Washington Street and the
current situation, when this develops, encourage U-turns onto
Washington Street. Therefore, this is beneficial to the
homeowners as it does take some traffic off of Caleo Bay and he
does not see the safety issues on Washington Street as being any
more or less than they are today.
1 9. Commissioner Tyler stated that during the discussions regarding
the traffic along here for the Arts Foundation, there was
discussion regarding providing left turn capability and staff's
G :\WPDOCS\PC 2- 27-01. wpd ! 4
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2OO1
recommendation was no, people would be diverted to 48th Avenue
where they could make a U-turn if they want to go north on
Washington Street.
20. Chairman Robbins stated he did not support that then and does
not support it now.
21. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-023, recommending Certification of an
Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact for Environmental Assessment 89-110, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: Commissioner Tyler. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-024, approving Tract
Map 24230, Amendment//1, as recommended.
23. Commissioner Kirk stated he did not believe Commissioner Tyler
was off target on this in a lot of ways. He is still in support of the
project largely because he knows how hard staff works to keep
our Primary Arterials free of interference and he thinks they have
done a nice job on this one and it perhaps is not the best of
circumstances, but reasonably good enough for him.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: Commissioner Tyler. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
D. Site Development Permit .7000-697; a request of Cliff House
Development LLC for an addition of 32 tandem parking spaces to the
existing parking lot for a restaurant located at 78-250 Highway 111.
1. Chairman Robbins 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 Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
G:\WPDOCS\PC2-27-01 .wpd ! $
Planning Commission Minutes -
February 27, 2001
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked what staff's interpretation is of the
current access in and out of the Cliff House. Senior Engineer Steve
Speer stated there is mixed signage. There i's a "right turn only"
sign as you are exiting. This is how the project was originally
Conditioned by Council. As Highway 111 is under State control,
the applicant petitioned Caltrans to revise the striping to allow left
turns. So now there is median stripping that allows left turns and
a sign that does not allow left turns. Commissioner Tyler asked
why staff could not remove the right turn only sign, as that was
within the City's control. Staff stated that if the Commission
wishes to make it a part of the conditions, staff will remove it.
Staff has not done so because the condition on the project is that
it is right turn only. It is within the Commission's power to direct
staff to remove it. Commissioner Tyler asked if the requirement
for the sidewalk could be removed. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated it was an amendment to the project
and staff is dealing with the project. Senior Engineer Steve Speer
stated the sidewalk was to go between the Point Happy project
and the Cliff House restaurant. Commissioner Tyler stated he
understood but it was still in the speculation stage and may or
may not get Caltrans approval. Staff stated the City Council has
directed staff to look into the cost and staff has completed that
review and there is an existing eight foot wide paved shoulder and
outside of the existing paved shoulder there is another six or seven
feet before you get to the fence. So there really is room to put the
curb and gutter at the existing pavement and still have six or
seven feet to the fence.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff had any concerns. Staff stated
they are looking for a way to help pay for the sidewalk. In regard
to the right turn only sign, staff has no objection to removing it.
4. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment on
this project.
5. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there
was any Commission discussion.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioner Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-025 approving Site Development Permit 2000-
692, as amended:
G:\WPDOCS\PC2-27-O 1 .wDd ] 6
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
a. Condition added to remove the "right turn only" sign.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
E. SIGN APPROVAL 2001-536; a request of M & H Realty Partners for an
amendment to a sign program for commercial pad buildings located at the
southwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 111, within Plaza
La Quinta
· 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated a request
had been received from the applicant to continue this project. It
was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to
continue Sign Approval 2001-536 to March 13TM, Unanimously
approved.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of February
20, 2001.
B. Community Development Director Jerry Herman informed the
Commission of the joint meeting between the City Council and Planning
Commission on April 4, 2001.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by .Commissioners
Tyler/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held March 1 3, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. on February 27,
2001.
Respectfully submitted,
Executive Secretary
La Quinta, California