Loading...
2012 02 28 PC MinutesMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78 -495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA February 28, 2012 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Alderson. PRESENT: Commissioners Barrows, Weber, Wilkinson, Wright, and Chairman Alderson. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Les Johnson, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Associate Planner Jay Wuu, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: There being no comments, or suggestions, it was moved by Commissioners Wright /Barrows to approve the minutes of February 14, 2012, as submitted. AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Wilkinson, Wright, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Weber. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Weber arrived at 7:05 p.m. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Conditional Use Permit 2011-132, and Site Development Permit 2011 - 919 a request by the Lenity Group for consideration of development plans for the La Quinta Memory Care facility located on Washington Street, north of Avenue 48. Associate Planner Wuu presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the roof element on Page A.6.d. was there to hide the air conditioning .units. Staff responded it was a parapet for the HVAC and mechanical equipment. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the applicant was participating in a shared parking agreement with the commercial neighbor next door and did they meet the City's parking standards. Staff responded they were not in a shared parking agreement and they did meet City standards. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the air conditioning units, building color, and landscaping would the same on the La Quinta project as they were shown in the photos of the Arizona project. Staff responded the buildings would be similar but the landscaping would be more robust. He added that the Package Terminal Air Conditioning Units (PTACs) would be painted to match the exterior wall color so they blended in more. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if additional bushes could be included to help screen the view. Staff said yes and a condition could be provided to request landscape screening if desired. Commissioner Barrows asked where the example project was located. Staff responded in Arizona. Commissioner Barrows said the landscaping looked really sparse around the building and referenced the ALRC comments' on the issue of the trees. She asked staff for a little more background on what sorts of landscape enhancements were made after this was reviewed by the ALRC. -2- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Associate Planner Wuu said after ALRC review, the applicant came back and said they would not be able to add more landscaping, specifically along the northern section of the building. He then said the applicant would elaborate further. Commissioner Barrows asked if there was a particular access or were people just going across the parking lot to access the walking path. Associate Planner Wuu said yes, there was an access. General discussion followed on the walking path, location of the access and the inclusion of a clear crossing designation, such as striping in the parking lot. Planning Director Johnson told the Commissioners there was a chance that the landscaping and pathway might not be built. He added that the northern property was surplus and there was a chance it could either be subdivided off or there could be a potential lot line adjustment with the vacant property to the north to enlarge that particular property. If either of those were to occur prior to occupancy of the building, a condition had been included that would not require them to have to develop this. This was not their original plan and intention, but staff asked this to be created because it would have just been a vacant fallow segment of the property and staff was not supportive of that. They wanted the Commission to be aware there was a chance that the landscaped.area might not be developed. Chairman Alderson asked if this was prior to occupancy. Staff said yes. The condition referenced was number 74 of the Site Development Permit Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Weber asked staff if the comments that were made by the ALRC were incorporated in the January 26` attachment 1 or was that attachment relatively the same as what the ALRC saw when they made their comments. Associate Planner Wuu said a little bit of both. It was the same exhibits with the ALRC's comments amended when possible. Commissioner Weber asked for a summary of the differences. -3- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Staff referenced Page 5 - attachment 1, which contained a list of all of ALRC's comments and the applicant's response and said that attachment was exactly what ALRC saw. Commissioner Weber noted the renderings /photos presented were of a comparable site in Arizona. He commented that they didn't necessarily match up with some of the changes the ALRC had asked for, but were included in the written document the applicant submitted to staff. Associate Planner Wuu concurred. General discussion followed on the type of ground cover that would be provided on the property to the north. Chairman Alderson asked if the 15 existing palm trees along Washington Street would remain. Staff responded they would. Chairman Alderson asked if the access from Caleo Bay would be a two -way driveway. Staff responded it would be. Chairman Alderson asked if, and where, bus stops and bike racks would be required. , Planning Director Johnson said there was an existing bus stop in front of the property and bicycle racks were required per the Municipal Code. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to speak. Mr. Greg Elmore, Lenity Group, 471 High Street SE, Suite 10, Salem OR 97301, introduced himself and stated they were in partnership with JEA Senior Living, who would be owner and manager of the facility. He then offered to answer the Commissioners' questions. SE Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Commissioner Weber asked for the applicant's response on some of the ALRC comments made regarding the lack of architectural significance in the overall concept. Mr. Elmore said this is a standard building shape. Their client, JEA Corp., operates using this type of building, all over the country. So they were kind of tied to this type of building shape. The buildings in the photographs were taken in Surprise, Arizona and shows our desert, Southwest style. We believe it fits in with the neighborhood including the shopping center behind the project. He felt they had done a good job of breaking up the long fagade using different materials and pointed out that the roofline was actually broken up pretty well, especially on the Caleo Bay and Washington facades. Commissioner Weber asked if the choice of colors had been used in other locations. Mr. Elmore said what you see in the photographs is the exact same color palette that we are proposing for this facility as well. Commissioner Weber asked about the sparse landscaping. Mr. Elmore said the building, shown in the photos, was just built and the project wasn't even done yet. The landscape plan for the La Quinta site would be much more intense than what was provided in Arizona. He also stated, in the photos shown, the boxes under the windows, or PTACs (Package Terminal Air Conditioning Units), had not been painted. Mr. Elmore continued on the following points: • The trellises had been increased to a depth of five feet and will have vines growing on them as requested by the ALRC. • He pointed out the locations of the trees and shrubs and added their landscape architect told them they couldn't put in any more trees and explained why. Commissioner Weber commented on making the entry points more visible due to safety concerns. Mr. Elmore said that made sense, but did note that the residents would not be going over there without family or staff assisting. -5- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Commissioner Weber asked if the carports were structurally able to have solar added at some future date. Mr. Elmore said yes. Commissioner Barrows asked why there were carports on some of the parking areas and not others. Mr. Elmore said they weren't required to cover any of them and explained that they wanted to cover a portion of each of the standard, and handicapped, stalls. He said their staff had asked that the stalls along Washington Street not be covered. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about one of the elevation and site drawings; showing what appeared to be a fence and steel gate. He asked Mr. Elmore to clarify what was shown. Mr. Elmore said that showed their shared entrance with Walgreen's. The fence shown had metal pickets which were so close together it looked like a solid fence. General discussion followed on the location of perimeter fencing and enclosed locations within the complex. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on the fact that the Commission did not have an accurate rendering of the project from the Washington Street perspective; as well as his concern about the constant roof line behind a fence on the most visible side. He added that the Caleo Bay side looked good, but he was concerned about the landscaping on the Washington Street side. Mr. Elmore responded it would not take long to obtain a rendering if the Commissioners so desired. He also responded there was a large berm along Washington Street and they didn't take a photo on that side because from either a car or person's view you would not even be able to see the building due to the landscape planned. General discussion followed regarding the Washington Street berm, the landscaping depicted, the tree varieties, and the final landscaping plan. M Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Chairman Alderson asked staff if it would be possible to have the applicant bring in a drawing further delineating what the entry was going to look like. Planning Director Johnson said yes. He added staff typically asked for multiple perspectives from different angles and the applicant tried to provide a perspective as if you were entering in the driveway off of Washington Street right next to Walgreens. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if an office building could be allowed, on the northern portion of the property, sometime in the future. Staff responded it could or this parcel could be absorbed into another vacant parcel between this property and the two -story medical office building. General discussion followed regarding the border of the northern parcel versus the memory care facility. Commissioner Wright asked if the applicant felt the 55 parking stalls were adequate. Mr. Elmore said it was and explained that they operated some of their facilities with only 32 parking stalls and the same number of beds. Commissioner Wright asked if this project met the parking requirements. Staff responded it met the Municipal Code requirements. Commissioner Wright said this is a good landscape plan and asked if the applicant was going to be building right away or allowing it to stay fallow. Mr. Elmore said they would be building it as you see it right now unless there is an opportunity for the owner of this property to parcel off that piece of land. He said they met all of the open area and landscape requirements without that one acre. Commissioner Wright said he had one concern on the north side where the walking path was located. There was no landscape shown which was probably because there was a vacant lot on the other side. He -7- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 was, however, very concerned about wind and dust. He then referenced the Arts Foundation property across the street and the dust problems associated with it. He stated he would like to see some kind of plan to at least buffer that property, landscape -wise and not too expensive, to help control the dust situation. He then commented on his recent trip to the property and the foot and vehicular traffic. The walking path has decomposed granite (d.g.), but the other lots do not. Mr. Elmore said if it becomes a problem I can guarantee you something will happen. Commissioner Wright said the City would have to deal with it, but he wanted to bring it to everyone's attention that it is the only area in this whole property that is wide open and it is the most vulnerable to wind and dust. Chairman Alderson asked if the landscape plan showed planted material or ground cover. Mr. Elmore said the landscape plan showed native grasses and perennial seed mix. General discussion followed on what was shown on the landscape plan and what was discussed at the ALRC. Chairman Alderson asked about the size of trees being planted. Planning Director Johnson said they were 24" box trees. Chairman Alderson referenced a previously approved project on this site and stated the concerns, from people on Caleo Bay were 1) the site line would be violated in terms of height and 2) they would lose their view of the mountains. He then noted that the building height is far away from the maximum allowed. Associate Planner Wuu said the average was approximately 17' 7" Chairman Alderson noted every room exited onto a common hallway and it was protected from the outside by three doors. He asked if those were manned security doors. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Mr. Elmore said they were not manned, but they were secure doors. He explained about State licensing requirements and the safeguards they had in place. General discussion followed on safety concerns and included several scenarios of residents attempting to leave the building and the ensuing results. Chairman Alderson expressed his concern with the aesthetics of the building, saying it looked like a motel; especially with the wall - mounted air conditioners. He felt the building needed some color and architectural features, as well as the possibility of moving the air conditioners to the roof to screen them architecturally. He asked the applicant what he could do to make that building more interesting. Mr. Elmore said they couldn't put the mechanical units on the roof, as it was not feasible partially due to cost and also because State licensing required each unit to have individual heating control. He then explained the difficulty with moving those units to the roofs. Mr. Elmore gave a more • detailed explanation of the exhibits presented since there were no site- specific exhibits included in the packet. Chairman Alderson said the exhibits did a good job of conveying the type of product, but he was uncomfortable with the design of the project as it did not say "La Quinta" to him. Commissioner Wilkinson agreed and pointed out the lack of site - specific photo .simulations. He was concerned that the Commission was not getting a realistic view of the project. Chairman Alderson reiterated his comments on the exterior elevations, that they were all browns, and the introduction of color was needed to make the project more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Elmore suggested they could look at different stucco and stone colors. General discussion followed on possible locations for the introduction of color in the project, color -match painting of the PTAC units, and landscaping improvements such as moving /coloring the trellises and adding vining to them. SLOE Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 General discussion followed on what renderings were currently available to the applicant, the possibility of them bringing back some renderings of architecture and landscape as suggested, the, possibility of continuing the item, and differences in the Surprise, Arizona site versus the La Quinta site. Mr. Carl Sanders, Director of Development, JEA Senior Living, 12115 NE 99' Street, Suite 1800, Vancouver, Washington 98682 introduced himself and said they had been working on this project for a long time and were hoping to create a community that was both beneficial for the seniors they took care of and kept costs as low as possible. He said if the Commission could find a way to move forward, without continuing the item, that would be their preference. If there were conditions that they could accommodate and additional exhibits they could bring in, that would help with their schedules. He said they were willing to work on incorporating color, where appropriate, adding they took the appropriate ALRC comments and were willing to accommodate in any way that they could. He said they had submitted construction drawings already and were anxious to move forward if there was any way to accommodate .that. General discussion followed regarding difficulties encountered in the construction process. Commissioner Barrows asked for more information on how their clients would be able to walk outside the property. She noted the walkway was shown but it did not appear to go all the way around the building and she asked if there was a walking element to the outside perimeter to the building and was it continuous. Mr. Sanders explained the type of residents they cared for were moderate and (primarily) those in the severe stages of Alzheimer's. Many were in wheel chairs and extended walking or leaving the building would be 100% staff- assisted. Most of the outdoor recreation would take place in a secured courtyard area and their communities did not have extended staff - assisted walking with the clients due to their advanced stage of Alzheimer's. Commissioner Barrows commented there was not a lot of demand for that sort of access. -10- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Mr. Sanders said it was a benefit, where appropriate. The program was designed 100% around meeting the individual resident's needs. General discussion followed regarding accessibility of the interior courtyard, the interior doors, the dining facilities, and safety precautions. Commissioner Barrows asked if the fence would be put up right away. Mr. Sanders said the fence would be installed with the construction of the building as it was required as part of the State licensure. General discussion followed on the layout of the building, its orientation on the parcel and its access points. General discussion followed on the future possibilities of the northern portion of the lot, the choice of location for this project and the height appropriateness. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the northern parcel would be fenced in. Mr. Sanders said no and explained the challenges of that site. General discussion followed on fencing and open space versus a park. Commissioner Wilkinson stated his concern about City liability if there was no fence built around the open space portion of the property. City Attorney Jenson said it was not going to be a City liability as it was not public property. It was private property and that is not the type of situation that would give rise to liability on the City's part. There being no further questions of staff, or comments from the applicant, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Jay Arnoldus, 47 -935 Via Opera, introduced himself and said he was with the Lake La Quinta Homeowners' Association (HOA), but was speaking on his own behalf since their Association had not voted on this project. He said, after meeting with the applicant, they had two major concerns which he had not heard addressed during the Commission meeting. They are: -11- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 1) The high volume of traffic that is currently on Caleo Bay and the addition of an entrance, close to the existing Walgreens parking lot entrance; which would increase traffic on a small road not intended for the,high speed traffic it already has. He said they previously spoke with the City and were accommodated by the restriping of the road, last year, which has been successful so far. He then commented on his concern about vehicles exiting the Lake La Quinta rear gateway, located across from the project driveway. 2). The HOA's other concern was the business facility of the applicant across from that driveway; which appeared to be a loading dock. (He indicated the area he was referring to.) Mr. Elmore responded it was not a loading dock. Mr. Arnoldus continued that it must certainly be the place where the garbage will be picked up and with a 66 bed facility we would guess that would happen at least several times a week. He then commented on the back -up sounds made by the trucks. The residents who live across the street are going to hear that at least twice a week, early in the morning. He said they hoped that garbage facility would have been moved further away from the residential area. He added, on the other side of Caleo Bay, on both sides are residences right on the roadway, with only one side screened by bushes and the other side had no screening at all. He finished by saying those were the two major concerns they had and hoped they would be addressed. Chairman Alderson asked staff if they were aware of these concerns and had they been discussed with anybody. Planning Director Johnson said staff attended (as observers) the meeting the developer had with the Lake La Quinta Homeowners' Association where those concerns were voiced. He then addressed them individually: • Regarding Caleo Bay and access: The intent, when this property was subdivided, was to utilize Caleo Bay as a collector street to serve these properties. He noted the medical building and the nearby restaurant were designed that way, as were other properties along this roadway. The City does not believe that this proposed development will add additional trips to the 1111 VIM Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 point where it is beyond its capacity, and in fact, it is well under its designed capacity. • The issue of alignment of the driveways was an intentional matter to be lined up with the Lake La Quinta entrance. They were not offset because of concerns about accidents and safety. Whenever possible those connections are made right across from one another. So, that was an intentional design which we worked on with the applicant. • Regarding the trash; that is a more difficult matter. There are existing trash enclosures serving the commercial venture to the south and north. They have noise associated with them which can certainly be a disturbance. But unfortunately with the design of the site and where it's located, you will hear that on occasion. We did speak with Burrtec and they do utilize Caleo Bay as their route for collection and we believe their intent is to pick up three times a week, with the potential for noise, on those occasions. The only other way to avoid that is to flip it all the way over to the Washington Street side. We do not know if the trash enclosure locations, further to the north, are exactly the same distance away from residences, but they are in close proximity to residences as well, so we didn't see this as being an inconsistent proposed development to what already exists in other locations along Caleo Bay. General discussion followed on Burrtec's pick up times and the possibility of staff encouraging Burrtec to consider more appropriate times which would minimize noise impacts to the adjacent residential environment. Chairman Alderson commented the previously approved project, for this site, was a commercial shopping center with a . much greater traffic impact than this one. Staff responded it was a retail center and prior to that a hotel; both with higher traffic impacts. Chairman Alderson said he did not see this particular usage generating an inordinate amount of traffic. He asked if anyone else would like to speak on the project. Ms. Judie Harrison, 47 -145 Via Orvieto, introduced herself and said she lived on the north side of the complex, roughly across from her -13- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 property was Louise's Pantry and then a huge open space. She stated the trash trucks come in as early as 7:00 a.m. She then described the types of noises they made and the fact that she had called Burrtec several times with no results. She said the homeowners were told that the northern portion of this parcel would not be developed as a landscaped area and she was very concerned because of the truck and pedestrian traffic commonly crossing there. She said she contacted the City about her concerns with the result that chains were put up. The amount of dust which her lot is directly in back of is incredible. She then commented on her concerns with . Washington Park; which were not relative to this project. She said her concern with the project parcel was that there would be another big disturbed piece of property. Chairman Alderson said it's disturbed now, but it has been cleaned up. He then asked if she still had a dust problem. Ms. Harrison said she did as they had never put the green chemical treatment down and it needed to be done. She said they are completely surrounded by commercial buildings that are not completed.. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if her concern, specific to this property, was whether the landscaped open space was going to be put in or not. Ms. Harrison said yes. Planning Director Johnson explained the way the condition was written was if they had not subdivided or done a boundary line, or lot line, adjustment with the adjacent property to the north prior to occupancy of the building they would have to develop it. It would have to be improved as identified in the information presented. If they were to sell, subdivide or conduct a lot line adjustment with the property to the north then it would remain vacant property in the condition it is in today and it would then be developed in accordance with whatever happens in the future. General discussion followed regarding the how long it would take to subdivide this parcel and what would happen if and when that occurred. -14- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 ' Staff explained why the landscaped open space was included and general discussion followed on what could be done regarding Ms. Harrison's dust concerns. Ms. Harrison said she was not worried about the lots that weren't a part of their property; the section that is not going to be a walking path. They need to preserve that somehow because it will get disturbed during construction. Chairman Alderson said if it is sold it will be the new landowner's problem and will become a Code Enforcement issue. Ms. Harrison said she just wanted to suggest that, when the project is completed, someone walk that property that has not been completed and make sure that something is addressed. Chairman Alderson noted her comments. There being no further public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Weber commented on the challenges of the site and the probability of the landscaped open space going in. He then went over comments made at the meeting regarding: • Safety and liability with regards to the open area and fencing. • Larger trellises which could include vines for additional landscaping and color. • The aesthetics of the entrance from Washington Street. • Alignment of the project entry and that of the Lake La Quinta rear gate on Via Florence. • Garbage pick -up and working on solutions in cooperation with Burrtec. Commissioner Weber also asked if the neighbors, from Rancho La Quinta, had been noticed and had we received any comments back. Staff responded a 500 -foot property radius notice was sent out as required and no comments had been received. -15- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Commissioner Barrows said she also thought the trellises should be colored, possibly brick red and suggested bougainvillea for the vining as it would add a lot of color. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on the possibility of the landscaped open space going in and said if the applicant did not plan on putting it in they should submit a plan that doesn't have it in there and just soil seal the thing with soil cement until it sells. If they can do a lot line adjustment in 60 or 90 days why would they go ahead and spend the money to landscape this area. City Attorney Jenson said the Commission could require that as a condition of approval. She explained that the staff dealt with it because it wasn't shown as part of the project. But the Commission had the authority to make that a part of the project. Staff tried to deal with it as best they could without making it a part of the project forever. Chairman Alderson asked Counsel to clarify that it would be a part of the project until it was legally no longer a part of the project. City Attorney Jenson said yes. General discussion followed on ownership of the property due to a lot line adjustment or subdivision, soil treatments, dust control, and . conditioning the property with the landscaping requirements. Commissioner Wright made comments on: • This project met the City's mixed use plan as noted in the General Plan. • An elevation plan prepared by the applicant's landscape architect. • Sensitivity to the potential PM 10 problems that exist across the street and alert Code Enforcement that this is something we really need to watch with the PM 10 and the AQMD. • Landscape screening, or a buffer, to block blowing sand from entering into the front door of the building. Chairman Alderson stated he would like to see the following items included in any motion for approval: -16- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 • Reference to dust control for the concern of the neighbors. • That the applicant come to staff prior to the issuance of the building permit with additional elevations showing some color additions and architectural metal screenings, as mentioned by Commissioner Wright. • Some revised exterior elevations. • Add some paint on the outside of that building to get some color into it. • Ownership: if you own the property to the north, you landscape it whether you subdivide it or not. General discussion then followed on the parcel to the north, connection of the meandering sidewalk, and options available to the Commissioners in case of ownership changes on that parcel. Chairman Alderson asked for clarifications, from Counsel, on the Commissions' options. City Attorney Jenson said the Commission could simply require that the applicant to put in the improvements subject to allowing a change of use of that area to the north in conjunction with some future development proposal. She said I'm not sure if I understand - if you're feeling that open space walking area component is something that you feel is necessary to make this overall project more desirable and fit better within our standards then it seems appropriate to require that, but you may want to have the latitude to allow them to do something else with that property, if they want to combine it with property to the north. She noticed the applicant's Counsel was raising her hand to comment and suggested the Chairman reopen the public hearing to allow her to speak. Chairman Alderson reopened the public hearing. Ms. Emily Hemphill, Ealy, Hemphill & Blasdel, LLP, 71905 Highway 111, Suite H, Rancho Mirage CA 92270, Attorney for the applicant, said we are fine with the idea that if we own it, we put it in and we maintain it. If we do a lot line adjustment, by definition, you're adding it to someone else's property and that will come to you as part of that future project anyway. -17- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Chairman Alderson said I understand what you're saying, but if we do that it could be three years before somebody else comes in with a project. Mr. Sanders said we are fine putting it in. It wasn't their goal when the property was purchased, but if we own the property and the landscaped area is there we would use it. However, we would like the flexibility in the future, if a viable project comes forward and goes through the process that it is potentially allowed because commercial ground in that area is of a. premium and this is one of the few pieces left. General discussion followed on what the landscaped area improvements might cost. There being no further questions of the applicant, or public comments, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification on Condition 74. She said it looks like if there were a lot line adjustment that the applicant would be required to identify or provide perimeter landscaping on what would then be their north boundary. Is that right? Planning Director Johnson said the way that Condition 74 is written right now, that is the case. If a boundary line adjustment were done prior to Certificate of Occupancy (C of Oj and they did not develop the open space area then it would require them to revise their landscape plan to identify a perimeter landscape improvement along that property line. General discussion then followed on the walking path. . Chairman Alderson said if the applicant elects to put in a lot line adjustment there and create that as a separate lot on its own, they'd still own it, they'd still be obligated for those improvements. Commissioner Wilkinson said right. Condition 74 isn't written that way, but we'll condition it so that that's what happens. -18- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilkinson /Wright to adopt Resolution 2012 -007 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2011- 132 as conditioned in the staff report. Unanimously approved. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilkinson /Wright to adopt Resolution 2012 -008 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2011 - 919 as conditioned in the staff report as well as the following changes: Add the following paragraph to Condition No. 74: The landscaped open space area north of the proposed building and driveway shall be developed and maintained substantially consistent with the approved preliminary landscape plan until such time as an alternative development proposal for the area is approved by the Planning Commission. Add Condition No. 99: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit photographic simulations for review and approval by the Planning Director. The simulations shall depict the La Quinta Memory Care Facility from different locations; 1) Washington Street from the northwest, 2) Washington Street from the southwest, and 3) Caleo Bay Drive from the northeast. The renderings shall include all existing and proposed perimeter landscaping (including the existing berm), all free - standing architectural elements (perimeter fence, trellis structures, etc.), and additional color enhancements to the exterior of the proposed building. Landscaping shall be shown at the estimated 5- year growth level. Add Condition No. 100: A pedestrian walkway shall be installed to directly connect the ADA parking spaces on the west side of the north primary entrance of the facility with the walking path located in the landscaped open space area in the northern portion of the property. Unanimously approved. -19- Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. None. VIII.. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report of the City Council Meeting of February 21, 2012. B. Commissioner Wright is scheduled to report back .on the March 6, 2012, City Council meeting. IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. Discussion of Desert Sun article regarding Palm Desert's handling of Commission stipends. This item will be discussed at a future Council meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioners Wilkinson /Wright to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on March 13, 2012. This regular meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m. on February, 28, 2012. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn alker, Executive Secretary City of La.Quinta, California 2KY111