Loading...
2001 12 11 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA December 11, 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 Abels who asked Commissioner Robbins to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, Principal -- Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Commissioner Tyler asked that the Agenda be kept as presented and not combine Public Hearing Items E and F. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to hear Public Hearing Items E and F separately. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: B. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of November 27, 2001. Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 4 be amended to include the discussion regard traffic counts and specialty retail. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 8 be amended to move the result of the vote to after the motion. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to approve the _ minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. C. Department Report: None V. PRESENTATIONS: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 12-11-01 .wpd Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2001 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Environmental Assessment 2001-415, Tentative Tract Map 29963, and Street Name Change 2001-013; a request of La Quinta Construction for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; approval of a subdivision of approximately 13.4 acres into six estate single family lots that are 2.1 5 acres in size and larger; and initiation of a street name change from Kirk Court to Coral Mountain Drive for the property located at the northwest corner of Kirk Court and Avenue 58. 1. Staff informed the Commission that a letter had been received from the applicant requesting a continuance to January 8, 2002. Staff was recommending the continuance. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to continue this item to January 8, 2002. Unanimously approved. B. Environmental Assessment 2001-417 and Tentative Tract Map 30092, Amendment #1; a request of Barton Properties for certification of a revised Environmental Assessment and approval of the subdivision of approximately 38.4 acres into 1 30 single family and other common lots for the property located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street. 1. Staff informed the Commission that a letter had been received from the applicant requesting a continuance to January 8, 2002. Staff was recommending the continuance. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to continue this item to January 8, 2002. Unanimously approved. C. Site Development Permit 2001-71 9; a request of Puerta Azul Holdings, for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for four prototype resort villa units with two facades each and a two story 5,274 square foot Greathouse (Clubhouse). 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked for clarification on the height of the units. Staff stated they were up to 18 feet. Commissioner G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 12-11-01 .wpd ~ Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2001 Robbins asked if they would be able to achieve two stories. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Robbins asked why the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) had requested a mudded tile roof. Staff stated they thought it would give a more authentic look. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked why the ALRC did not want the color change at the base of the columns. Staff stated they thought it would look better without the color change. 4. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with the deletion of the wood garage doors, but asked if it would not be too restrictive on the applicant to limit him to a composite door. He recommended it be either composite or metal. 5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant if they would explain how the common wall worked; Unit 2A side elevation has very little detail; Unit 2B appears different on the colored drawings than on the black and white version; Unit 4A also has very little detail on the ground floor side elevation; and whether or not they agreed with the ALRC recommendations. Mr. Steve McCormick, representing the applicant, stated that in regard to the common wall between the two adjacent units, this is a zero lot line where one of the units borrows space from the other. This is a use easement instead of a lot line which allows for a more useable yard space instead of having a fence dOwn the middle with two narrow sideyards. Mr. Glen Walters, Design Workshop, explained the use easement area. It has to do with increased usability without sacrificing privacy, and the area is not visible to the surrounding public, therefore, less detail on the walls. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant had any objection to the ALRC recommendations. Mr. McCormick stated he interpreted their intent was to bring more detail to the Greathouse because it was the focal point of the community. In concept they agree with the recommendations, if they can afford the cost. In regard to the color on the columns, they had no objection. Mr. McCormick gave a presentation on the project. Mr. Glen Walters gave a .--- presentation on the landscaping plan. 6. Commissioner'Tyler questioned the use of the Jacaranda trees on the street as they would be very messy. The Desert Willow can be beautiful only at certain times of the year, but is also deciduous G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 12-11-01 ,wpd :~ Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2001 and at the peak of the season it will have dead branches. Mr. Walters stated the biggest consideration forming their plant pallette was water conservation. They will take this under advisement and see if there are better alternatives. 7. Commissioner Butler questioned the location of the two story units on the perimeter. As currently plotted there would be one two story adjacent what right now is nothing, but it opens the issue that if they build two story units it will allow the adjacent property owner to build a two story house. Also, in regard to the letter that indicates the two story units would not be on the perimeter but on the interior. Mr. Walters stated the letter misinterpreted the concept of the project and what was approved under the Specific Plan. There are a limited number of two story units as part of the clusters. Commissioner Butler stated he didn't question the number, but the plotting of the clusters placing all the two story units on the perimeter of the project. Mr. Walters stated the way the clusters are positioned now, it works the best for this project. Commissioner Butler asked staff if the two story units were approved on the perimeter under the Specific Plan. Staff stated it was not specifically stated, but according to the Zoning Code it is based on who builds first. 8. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding this project. There being no further discussion, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 9. Commissioner Robbins stated his only concern was the use of two story units on the perimeter of the project. He would recommend restricting two story units from being built on the south property line. 10. Commissioner Kirk stated he would agree with Commissioner Robbins, although this should have been addressed during the Specific Plan approval, but he would concur with Commissioner Robbins. He commended the applicant on his product and presentation. 1 1. Chairman Abels stated he concurred with the comments that had been made. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 12-11-01 .wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2001 12. Commissioner Butler asked if the clusters could be rotated. Mr. Walters explained the second story was not a true story. It is more of an architectural feature. Discussion followed as to the construction and location of the two story units. Mr. Walters stated they had no objection. 13. Commissioner Tyler asked if the development on Kirk Street would back up to this project. He has a concern about setting a precedent that the Zoning Code governs over. 1 4. Commissioner Butler stated this is normally an issue because there are adjacent properties and in this instance there are no adjacent units. Is this setting a precedent. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the only affect is that once the first unit is built, no matter which project is first, the property owner who builds a two story will allow the adjoining property owner to build a two story. Discussion followed regarding the affect of a two story unit on an adjoining property owner. 15. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-148, approving Site Development Permit 2001- 719, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment//1; a request of Warner Engineering for Lundin Development Company for an amendment to the text development standards and design guidelines and an amendment to the site plan design adjacent to Avenue 50 for a 100,500 square foot shopping center located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the --- Community Development Department. 2, Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked if the primary concern of staff was. that no berming would be provided on the streetscape, Staff G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 12-11-01 .wpd .~ Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2001 stated that is true. Commissioner Robbins asked the depth of the retention basins. Staff stated it is approximately five or six feet deep. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked if there were any standards in terms of the number of curb cuts for access on commercial projects like this or is it a decision made by staff. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the General Plan requires it to be a minimum, which is a judgement call of staff, If the City Council and/or Planning Commission believes that what is being requested is too many, staff has reviewed it and determined it will work and it is not an unsafe situation. Staff has recommended eliminating the public access on the fourth access point requested by the applicant. The only minimum stated in the General Plan is how close they can be to a signalized intersection. Other than that staff indicates they should keep the driveways to a minimum. Commissioner Kirk stated one of the applicant's rationale for the increased number of accesses is the concentration of traffic on the previous access points. Staff stated this was a statement of the applicant. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if the fourth access would also be an access for the smaller pads. Would this close off truck traffic to service the smaller pads. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated those stores would be serviced from the front instead of the rear. 5. Commissioner Tyler questioned the number of driveways when you consider these as well as the adjacent tracts. Staff stated it is an issue before the Commission for their determination. Discussion followed regarding the access points. Commissioner Tyler questioned the gate at the north property line that would be gated to the tract. Staff stated a condition had been added not allowing the gate. 6. Commissioner Butler asked staff where the retention basins would go if not allowed in the setback. Senior Engineer Steve Speer. stated they would either lose parking spaces or work with the adjoining property owner to create the basin. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked if the sign program had been approved. Staff stated the applicant is conditioned to bring a final sign program back to the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 12-11-01 .wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2001 Commissioner Tyler asked about the need for future expansion for right turns; is this still required? Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this has already been acquired. 8. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mike Smith, Warner Engineering, representing the applicant, explained their request. 9. Commissioner Tyler asked about the roadways in the rear of the buildings and why he thought the Fire Department would want to use it. Mr. Smith stated they had no objection to making it an emergency exit or right turn out. 10. Commissioner Butler questioned whether or not the landscape architect would be able to buffer the parking lot without berms. Mr. Smith stated he was proposing to use short walls and plant materials. Commissioner Butler stated the driveways could be obstructed by the landscaping plan. Commissioner Butler asked - what the elevation was of the parking lot. Mr. Smith stated it was hard to read. 1 1. Commissioner Kirk asked about the concrete pipe. Mr. Smith stated this was a proposed solution if they could not use the retention basin in the landscape setback. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant knew about the deceleration upon the initial approval. Mr. Smith stated yes they did and it was given to the City. Commissioner Kirk asked if the percolation rate had changed. Mr. Smith stated it is less than what is contained in the soils report. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the City's standard has always been 2-inches per-hour maximum. Commissioner Kirk questioned why another access point was needed. Mr. Smith stated to accommodate the buildings in the "L" shaped area. 12. Mr. Greg Bever, Lundin Development, explained the purpose in regard to adding the accesses. Commissioner Kirk asked why the access to the east would not accommodate the shops instead of adding the additional access. Mr. Bever stated, it would give __. better access to the pads. 1 3. Commissioner Robbins noted there is no deceleration lane for the main entrance off Avenue 50. There is a deceleration lane on the two smaller accesses and this seems backwards. Senior Engineer G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC12-11-01 .wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2001 Steve Speer stated the Municipal Code requires 90 feet of throat depth for an access to a parking lot. This particular site is constrained along its frontage making the site shallow front to back in several locations. As a result of not having the 90 feet, staff was allowing to use a deceleration lane. Staff noted they are not moving the right-of-way line which should be done as the City does not want the curb back of the right-of-way line. Staff considers this as an alternative and does believe it is being overused in this instance. It is not needed on the main entrance because the throat going into the parking lot is 90 feet. 14. Commissioner Tyler asked if the parking lot on the west end was employee parking. Mr. Bever stated it was. With regards to using the retention basin, it is a large economic repercussion for them. They do comply along Avenue 50 with the 20-foot landscaping setback. As far as a visual buffer for those traveling on Jefferson Street there is 60-feet of dense landscaping which will allow them the depth to provide visual screening. 15. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding this project. There being no further discussion, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 16. Commissioner Robbins stated that conceptually he has no problem with the retention basin encroaching into the landscape setback. He is concerned with the northerly part of Jefferson street where the retention basin backs up to the two faSt food pads, as they are not usually maintained. He would be more comfortable if they had a landscape plan the Commission could review. On the other hand he does not want to create a high water usage landscape plan. 17. Commissioner Kirk stated he also has a concern with the retention basin, but believes it could be resolved. On the access issue, there are too many curb cuts. If an emergency access is needed, then he cold support it as an exit only. Regarding the minor setback issue, he supports the applicant's request. 18. Commissioner Butler stated he concurs with the lack of detail on the landscape plan. If it were in more detail, he could probably agree with the retention basin request. In regard to the access, he G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 12-11-01 .wpd ~ Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2001 would agree with closing off the one on the western end and making it an emergency access only. This would still allow three accesses on Avenue 50 and three on Jefferson Street. 19. Commissioner Tyler stated the Specific Plan states on Page 12 that the trees will be mature in 15-20 years. He would like to see a more detailed landscaping plan before approving it. He does believe there is a need for all the access points as requested. Also, he would like to see the access in the rear of the pads eliminated. 20. Mr. Smith requested this project be continued to allow them time to bring a landscape plan back to the Commission. He noted the entry to the north to the .tract will not be gated. 21. Commissioner Kirk suggested the applicant be given direction as to what to bring back. He needs to address the access points and .prepare a landscape plan. Discussion followed regarding access -- points. 22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to continued Specific Plan 98-03.4, Amendment #1, to January 8, 2002, as requested by the applicant. Unanimously approved. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:51 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:57 p.m. E. Environmental Assessment 2001-433. General Plan Amendment 2001- 082 a request of the City for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an Environmental Assessment and consideration of an amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element Table CIR-2 on Major Arterials to amend the minimum intersection spacing of 2,600 feet for commercial frontage. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file' ~-_ in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 12-11-01 .wpd ~) Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2001 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to explain the purpose of this request and if it conformed to General Plan. Staff stated this project is being processed before the General Plan update can occur, 3. Commissioner Kirk asked why 1,060 feet. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the distance criteria evolved as a result of accommodating something different than quarter-mile spacing. Under the original General Plan, staff was doing spacing at 1,320 feet which is a quarter mile. Staff found it was difficult to get driveways right at 1,320 feet, so staff softened the figure and went to 1,200 feet. This even became difficult so staff looked at what distance would be the most accommodating in a one mile distance. That distance is 1,060 feet; you cannot fit the fourth signal in, in a one mile distance. Commissioner Kirk stated the analysis indicated that other than special circumstances, capacities would not be affected on our major roadways and signals do not affect capacities much in terms of through-put. Staff stated intersections are where the impacts occur. Commissioner Kirk stated he did not see this referenced much in terms of travel times. What could be expected for instance, if a dozen more signals were placed on Washington Street, it would not affect the volume, but what would be the travel time? Staff stated there are two ways of measuring the Level of Service. One is based on delay and the City has used .this method for several years. Level of Service "D" takes into consideration delays and so far it is considered acceptable. Commissioner Kirk stated it appeared to be a measurement of volume versus capacity and not a delay measurement. Is staff saying that by adding additional intersections on our major Arterials, we would not expect increases in delay. Staff stated there would be delays. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked why this application is being done on a City-wide basis. From a safety factor you would want to reduce the number of intersections. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste explained the volume to capacity versus delay, as discussed by Commissioner Kirk. For Level of Service "D" there is a range of delay time that can be added in and still maintained Level D. In this case the traffic engineer added the mitigation measures regarding the interconnection of signals to optimize the movement through a Major Arterial. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 12-1 1-01 .wpd ] 0 Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2001 4. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 5. Commissioner Robbins stated he has no objection. 6. Commissioner Kirk stated he understands this would add more signals. Staff stated it depends on whether or not it is a Primary Arterial or Major Arterial. The current standard for Major Arterials use 2,600 feet and this will add a potential of two more signals a mile where the street is adjacent to commercial property. It has more to do with Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, if it meets warrants. 7. Commissioner Butler asked if one of the entrances to the shopping center will have a signal. Staff stated yes, the one at the south end closest to the canal and the condition will be rewritten to allow a full turn movement. Commissioner,Butler asked if this was not counterproductive to the round-a-bout. Staff stated that as you start coordinating signals, if you keep them within the 1,060 feet range rather than the half mile range, the platoon of cars will stay together better and make it through the coordinating system. The further apart the signals are the more the' cars will stretch out and will not work well on a coordinating system. 8. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was a traffic analysis completed. Staff stated it was a policy analysis. Commissioner Kirk asked how these determinations were made without an analysis. Staff stated they were referring to a traffic analysis in general where a Level of Service "D" represents a range of acceptable traffic flow at intersections. Discussion followed regarding traffic flow. 9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-1 50 certifying the Environmental Assessment. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Tyler. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-1 51 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-082, as submitted. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 12-11-01 .wpd ] ! Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2001 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Tyler. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. F. Environmental Assessment 2001-433, Specific Plan 2001-0454, Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 and Site Development Permit 2001- 711; a request of RLF Development for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an Environmental Assessment, Consideration of an amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element Table CIR-2 on Major Arterials to allow the minimum intersection spacing to be 2,600 feet for commercial frontage as previously required, review of design guidelines and development standards for a 120,000 square foot shopping center; consideration to allow a gas station; and review of development plans to include a supermarket, associated retail tenants, bank, and drugstore for the property located at the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Consultant Ni¢ole Criste presented the information contained in the staff report, a. copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked what mechanical equipment they were referring to on Page 25 of the Environmental Assessment. Staff stated it was the market's trash compactors. Construction hours would be governed by the Zoning Code. Commissioner Tyler asked about the proposed changes submitted by the Public Works Department. Senior Engineer Steve Speer noted additional changes being proposed by staff. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked staff why when a specific plan is submitted they all seem to contained a different tone and structure; is staff giving the applicants specific plan guidelines? Staff stated they are each given examples and a standard outline and this is how they chose to present it. Commissioner Kirk stated that if the specific plan is silent on any particular issue, he assumes the Zoning Code will govern. Staff stated that was true. Commission Kirk questioned why lighting was mentioned. Staff stated just to bring it to the applicant's attention. Commissioner Kirk asked how the nursery could function as a retention basin, as G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 12-11-01.wpd ! 2 Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2001 he thought it was an interesting idea. Staff explained there is no hydrology study to base any opinion on. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant were to expand the size of the retention basin volume to accommodate a commercial nursery would the City be interested. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the City would need to see the details of what was being proposed. There are some uses you can have in a retention basin. 4. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Richard Frandsen, principal in the project, gave a presentation on the project. In regard to percolation, it seems the same amount of water would be percolated. There have no specific user and if the City does not think it will work, they accept the conditions as recommended. 5. Chairman Abels asked if this supermarket will be adequate in size. for future planning. Mr. Frandsen stated it can be any size; the average supermarket is 21-85,000.square feet. -It is a matter of the customer base. 6. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding this project. There being no further discussion, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 7. Commissioner Robbins stated his concern is always the rear of the building and how it will look to the residents to the south and southeast. Without seeing additional detail and how it will interface with the surrounding projects, he is unable to support it at this time. 8. Commissioner Kirk stated he could support the project if staff worked with the applicant to clean up the Specific .Plan and if we were allowed to be creative with the retention basin. 9. Commissioner Butler stated he did not see a plant pallette. Staff stated it is contained in the attachments. Commissioner Butler asked if the tree size proposed was adequate. Staff stated they are. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 12-11-01 .wpd ]3 Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2001 10. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was pedestrian access behind the arch. Staff stated yes. 11. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-149, recommending certification a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-433, as modified: A. Addendum #11 .A.2. deleted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 1 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-151, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-082, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-1 52, recommending approval of Specific Plan 2001-054, as modified: A. Condition #45.A.2: Per Public Works revision. B. Condition #47.A.: Include a full turn movement. C. Condition #47.C.: Include a left turn in. D. Condition #82: Remove reference to a building pad and leave the nursery in but make it subject to City Engineer approval. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Robbins. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-1 53, recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2001-066, as recommended. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 12-11-01 .wpd ]4 Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2001 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-154, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-711, as recommended. A. Condition #2: Coachella Valley Unified School District. B. Condition #47.A.2.: Per the Public Works Department revisions. C. Condition #48.A.: Include a full turn. D. Condition #48.C.: Include a left turn in. E. Condition #70: Add: specific attention shall be to provide articulation along all the buildings rear elevations, ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman AbelS. NOES: Commissioner Robbins. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: F. Right of Way Vacations 2001-07. 08. 09. 010; a request of KSL. Land Corporation,..The Keith Companies, Blaine and Susan Grimes, and La Quinta Arts Foundation respectively, for a determination of consistency with the La Quinta General Plan of the proposed right of way vacations located on portions of Avenida Bermudas north of Calle Tampico, Calle Amigo near Avenue 52, Lots 16 an 17 of Tract 2667, and Avenue 48 west of Washingto~ Street. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Senior Engineer Steve Speer presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked who holds the easement on Westward Ho Drive and do they agree with its elimination. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that is a public utility easement and letters are being sent out to the utilities for them to respond. Once the Commission has determined whether or not there is a consistency with the General Plan, it will then go the City Council for a Notice of Intent to vacate and then a public hearing to make a decision on the vacation. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 12-11-01 ,wpd ! :~ Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2001 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-1 55, determining consistency with the General Plan for Right of Way Vacations 2001-07, 08, 09, and 010 as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of December 4, 2001. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held January 8, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. on December 11, 2001. ~A.~ectfully submitted, -Citv/0f/r_a Quinta, California G:\WPDC)C.~\PC Minutes\PC 12-11-01 .wDd 1(~