PCMIN 05 09 1995 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the L~ Ouinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Ouinta, CA
MAY 9, 1995 3:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 3:08 P.M. by Chairman Adolph.
Commissioner Barrows led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL:
A. Chairman Adolph requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler,
Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph.
B. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell,
Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand,
and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
IV. WORKSHOP:
A. Continued- Zoning Code Update: a request of the City for review and update of the Zoning Code.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report and
reviewed what had been covered to date.
2. Chairman Adolph asked if staff would like to address Mr. Norris Bernard's letter. Staff
stated the problem arises with basic compatibility issues where CC & R's do not exist.
City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that in a Zoning Ordinance. unless there is a specific
area of the town, cities do not typically get into real architectural detail or style unless
they are trying to create a historical district or feel in town. Discussion followed.
Members reviewed the proposed update to the Zoning Code. Those areas addressed were:
3. Section 9.60.030
PC5-9
Planning Commission Minutes
May 9, 1995
Page 004- c.4.a.1) change the footage to 20-feet
Page 004- D.1. Gates- Materials ..... Section and provided any wood used is of
"no less than a grade of". ...... of construction heart
D.2. Width. "Pedestrian" gates ........ except that "other" gates
may...
E.2.b.All wood fencino "no less than a grade of", shall be put it
wherever it appears.
Page 005- E.2.c.Add shall be a minimum of "nominal" 4" X 4".
E.4. Change cinder block to "precision concrete block or cinder
block" and "...are covered with stucco, texture coating, "paint'
or other .... ".
4. Section 9.60.040
Page 007 B.6. "...shall be of minimum "nominal" 2" X 2" material .... '
5. Section 9.60.050:
Page 007 Table 9 change Interior side yard to 3.5' for 0-100 square feet
structures
6. Section 9.60.060.
Commissioners asked that the wording for Garages and Carports be
changed.
7. Community Development Director Jerry Herman relayed information that had been obtained
from the other cities in the Valley relating to detached garages. The garage referred to in
Mr. Norris' letter is the same height as the house and under the height requirement for the
area. Staff will send this information to Mr. Norris. Discussion followed concerning
garage heights as they related to compatibility.
8. Section 9.60.060
Page 008 A. Heights. Change "maximum structure height shall be 17-feet'. Staff
to look into designing a table that makes the determination for height
based on lot sizes.
9. Section 9.60.080
Page 009 C.2. Height and Diameter. "...shall be no more than ten feet..."
8. Section 9.60.140
Page 017 B.4. Change "properties" to "features".
PC5-9
Planning Commission Minutes .
j May 9, 1995
9. Section 9.60.150
Page 018 B.3. Add shall not exc, ~ed 18 feet "from court surface" and delete
"or as approved b the Planning Commission."
10. Section 9.60.160
Page 019 2. Height. Pole or fE ~ce-mounted, "decorative or landscape type
lighting shall be..."
11. Section 9.100.030
Page 052 B. shall be measured from, "the finished grade at the" base of the
fence.
Page 053 3.a. Change to 30-incl ~es
4. Change to 30-incl ~es
12. Section 9.100.040
Page 054 B.l.a. Changeto 15%
B.l.b. Change to 15% taft to address drought-tolerant and water
efficient landsca ing
Add B.6 Majority of "lan[ ;cape plants shall be water efficient."
Page 056 3. Change to 30"
7.c. Change language 'egarding wood to agree with language from
Residential Stan[~ ards.
Page 057 7.d. Staff to check on wcrding.
13. Section 9.100.060
Page 057 A.3. On page 058 ad sentence "Planting to be maintained and
replanted in perp~ :uity."
Page 058 B.1. Change to 30-inc ~es.
14. Section 9.100.070
Page 058 A.2. Height to be sam as residential requirements.
15. Section 9.100.080
Page 059 1. Change Decembe 1 to "Monday following Thanksgiving."
PC5-9
Planning Commission Minutes
May 9, 1995 -
16. Section 9.100.120
Page 061 A. Remove the word "permanent"
C.3.a Change four inches thick to six inches.
Page 062 C.3.b. Add language from Residential Standards.
D. & D.1. Remove the word "permanent".
17. Section 9.100.130
Page 063 C.6. Change Fire Chief to Fire Marshal in both places
18. Section 9.100.140
Page 063 1. Change to read "..gatherings of 50 to 300 people." Staff to
create two temporary use permits. One will only require staff
approval.
Page 064 e. Change Fire Chief to Fire Marshal.
19. Section 9.100.150 Staff to update to current products and address according to
foot candles and limitation to the number allowed. Add this to
the Residential requirements as well if necessary.
Page 06§ A.3. Add "or safety hazard". -
A. Purpose. Add something about using the most energy efficient lighting
Page 0§8 1.a. Change Planning and Development to Building and Safety
Department.
Page 069 H.1. Add the original adoption date instead of "date of". Add to the
last sentence "...no change other than bulb replacement.
20. Section 9.100.170
Page 071 2. Add language regarding once the building is removed the
property must be restored to the original condition which might
include dust or weed abatement.
21. Section 9.100.180
Page 073 3. Add cash bond "to guarantee removal and restoration of site"
22. Section 9.100.200
Page 07§ D.2. On a concrete pad "sloped to drain to the gate"....per disposal
company..."and City".
PC5-9
Planning Commission Minutes
May 9, 1995
23. Section 9.100.220
Page 078 7. Eliminate the wor~ Is "when practical".
24. Section 9.100.240
Page 081 C. Add "product line ~nd dispensing equipment".
E.1. Add "...major rep ~ir and rebuilding, transmission and enoine
repair, autobody.. '
25. Section 9.100.270
Page 083 Staff to be sure this is the same as the Uniform Plumbing Code.
26. Section 9.100.230
Page 079 B.1. "...the applicant si all provide plans ""and"" identify .... approved
by ""all".
Chairman Adolph recessed the meeting at 5:25 P.M. and reconvened a' 7:03 P.M.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
VI. PUBLIC HFARINGS:
A. Continued- Street Name Change 95-006: a request of Ihe La Quinta Volunteer Fire Department for
a change of the name of a portion of Old 52nd Avenu to Frances Hack Lane.
1. Community Development Director Jerry Herm n presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in th Cor~munity I:)evelopment Department and
explained that staff had not received the in )rmation requested of the Coachella Valley
Recreation and Parks Department regarding renaming the Community Park.
2. Based on this information, it was moved and ;econded by CommiSsioners Abels/Anderson
to continue the item to the Planning Commi= sion meeting of May 23, 1995.
3. Commissioner Butler clarified that there cu'rently were only two parks available in La
Ouinta that could be named after anyone. C( mmissioner Abels stated he felt they should
wait the two weeks to see what the Coachel a Valley Recreation and Parks District would
do.
4. Commissioner Barrows asked what the Voh nteer Fire Department wanted. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated ~at they are still requesting the street name
be changed.
PC5.9
Planning Commission Minutes
May 9, 1995
5. There being no further discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue
the public hearing to May 23, 1995.
B. Conditional Use Permit 95-019: a request of Airtouch Cellular for approval to install a 100-foot high
monopole with three cellular antenna arrays, three microwave antenna dishes, and reinstall the
sports lighting.
1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Adolph asked what was immediately behind the proposed pole location.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the pole was is in the middle of the
two ball fields and backed up to the Evacuation Channel. Discussion followed regarding
the location of the pole on the site plan.
3. Commissioner Butler clarified that the light standard that is on the pole will remain as it
is now. Staff replied that the conditions state that the light must be replaced exactly as
it is now.
4. Commissioner Butler stated that with the additional pole this will give La Quinta additional
cellular coverage and increase emergency services. Staff stated that was true.
5. Commissioner Newkirk clarified that the pole would not appear to be any different than it
is now to the property owners to the south, what about the properties to the north. Staff
stated that due to the distance to the properties to the north, it should not be any
different.
6. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the lights were not the issue,
but the monopole. The City Council will be addressing the issue of the lights shortly during
the Capital Improvements budget review.
7. Commissioner Anderson asked what the span of the array would be on the pole. The
applicant clarified it would be a 13-foot radius and a 26-foot diameter. The applicant
clarified that it was a diameter or 13-13-foot apex.
8. Commissioner Anderson asked if there were any photographs of actual installations. Staff
stated they did not have but, reminded the Commissioners of the pole that was installed
at the Imperial Irrigation District property.
PC5-9
Planning Commission Minutes ..
May 9, 1995
9. There being no further questions of the staff, I;hairman Adolph opened the public hearing.
Mr. Hardy Strozier, speaking on behalf of Airtouch, spoke regarding the project and
showed a picture of an actual installation of a monopole in Los Angeles. He stated that
wireless phone service is declining because the amount of telephones that are coming
on line. This additional pole will increase the ;rvice to the area as well as the emergency
services communications.
10. Commissioner Anderson asked if the equipr ~ent building would produce any significant
noise. Mr. Strozier stated that the only nois~ would be the emergency generator when it
was being used.
11. Commissioner Butler asked if the pole was e~ rthquake proof. Mr. Strozier stated that he
had submitted a report of the condition of th~ poles following the Northridge earthquake.
He stated that this pole was a Iow power tr~ ~smitter. It takes a transmission and sends
it on to a receiver. They are monitored for 2~ l-hours.
12. Commissioner Anderson asked if the wind wculd create any problems. Mr. Strozier stated
that the pole was over designed and bec ~use of the location on a school site, the
conditions were doubly strict.
13. Commissioner Gardner asked if this would as sist the lower Valley residents. Mr. Strozier
stated it would help increase the coverage, Jut additional poles would be needed as the
need grows.
14. Chairman Adolph read a letter submitted fre · Airtouch that stated this would not be an
unusual or unique visual effect. Nor would be as noticeable as predicted.
15. Mr. Wayne Guralnick, attorney representing he four HOAs Bajada, Desert Fairways, Park
La Quinta, and Painted Cove as well as other homeowners in the area. He questioned the
visual impact of the tower. He addressed tte City's Ordinance 248 (Towers) and stated
that according to this Ordinance the tower lid not qualify. He questioned why the City
would allow the tower in a residential area, when it could be placed in a non-residential
area. He went on to address the General P an and stated that according to the General
Plan this area was designated as a Scenic Ce rridor. Policy statements in the General Plan,
also addresses these standards for visual ir ,pacts to the neighborhoods. He stated the
Commission needed to consider the feelings )f the residents in this area. He agreed that
this was a need, but not in this location.
PC5-9
Planning Commission Minutes
May 9, 1995
16. Mr. Joe Ministrelli, developer of the Bajada and Painted Cove developments, submitted a
petitions of objection to the tower that had been signed by all residents as well as letters
from those not able to sign the petitions. He then displayed photographs he had taken of
the lid pole. A lO0-foot pole will be the highest structure in the Valley. It is equal to a ten
story building. He felt that even though the City will address the issue of the lights, the
pole will still be there. He had been required to bury telephone poles when he developed
his projects but, the playground has 24 poles.
17. Commissioner Gardner asked if the development was put in before or after the Sports
Complex. Mr. Ministrelli stated the tract was developed before the Sports Complex.
18. Commissioner Newkirk asked to see a closer view of the photos taken by Mr. Ministrelli
of the lid pole.
19. Mr. Richard Steinke, 79-045 River Rock, resident that faces the Sports Complex,
wondered if the visual height of the tower was in scale to the photographs shown. He had
faced opposition when he was trying to construct a church steeple of 65-feet. What
would this do?
20. Mr. Al Durrett, 79-030 Dry Creek-Bajada, stated he was in favor of the project but,
believed this was a detriment to the community and a better location could be found in La
13uinta. If the City does determine to allow the pole, he would like to see the ~500
Airtouch pays each month to OSUSD given to defray the cost of reducing the lights.
21. Mr. Gary Avise,78-710 Via Sonata, president of HOA in Park La I:luinta, stated Mr.
Guralnick was not representing his association. His tract was built after the Sports
Complex and they were aware of the lighting at the Sports Complex. He was glad to hear
the City Could would address the issue of the lights, but a 100-foot tower will affect the
neighborhood. He stated his concern that as the proliferation of phone service grew, the
need for additional towers would also increase as other companies would also require
additional towers. Park La Quinta has been concerned about the undergrounding of utilities
along Washington Street and money is being with held from their developer to cover 50%
of the cost of undergrounding those utilities. He asked the applicant to clarify which
tower would be used for the installation of the tower equipment. Would it be similar to the
one at the lid station or the photo shown by Mr. Storzier.
PC5-9
Planning Commission Minutes
. .
May 9, 1995
22. Mr. Tom Culinnan, developer of Rancho La :l. uinta and Enstancia, stated that from the
photos taken from 50th Avenue, his develc )ment was located to the north. He felt a
better place would have to be found than in t e middle of a residential section of the City.
They were opposed to the tower at this tim~
23. Mr. Strozier, applicant, addressed the que,~ ions raised by the residents. He felt there
should be areas more appropriate. This tower would serve as a base for radio
transmissions. The towers serve as hand-off the radius is small and therefore the ability
to be in a different location is not that easy. lase stations need to be close to residential
areas because that is where the users are. TI ~e photos he showed are actual photos of the
area and not doctored. He stated he had. one out to the homes of the two property
owners who wrote letters in objection, and f~ =m their locations he could not see the light
standards that are there now. Mr. Strozier tated that Airtouch is the only true wireless
station and will be the only service availal~ in an emergency. Has never heard of any
property values diminishing because of the t wer being located in their residential areas.
In fact, it should increase values because ~f the services that would be available. In
regards to the lid tower, this is not the towe that will be built. It would be the one shown
in the photograph shown in San Clemente.
24. Commissioner Anderson asked about the proximity of the pole to the residential
neighborhood. What is the radius that this ~ole will serve? Mr. Strozier stated that it
would serve an area of approximately Y2 mile He discussed the importance of positioning
the microwave as to the surrounding mounl ins. Discussion followed about the factors
that make the system operate at its optimu~ n.
25. Commissioner Barrows asked if there were any other towers in the Valley. Mr. Strozier
stated the only other one was the one install~ ed at liD. Commissioners discussed locations
in the Valley where the service was poor.
26. There being no further public comment, Cha rman Adolph closed the public hearing.
27. Commissioner Abels stated that this is a no win situation as the need for the pole exists
and there will never be a site that is agreealc le to everyone. The issue tonight is the pole
and not the lights. As time goes by you beco~ ne accustomed to the poles and it is a service
that is needed. He was in favor of the local ion of the monopole.
28. Commissioner Gardner stated he had listene~ to the statements made by the residents in
regards to the tower and would agree with s me of the statements as he lives to the west
of the Sports Complex and the lights are obje :tionable, but this is not the subject. The use
of a cellular phone is an important servicE. He was in favor of seeing the monopole
installed and he felt it would not be detrime it.
PC5-9
Planning Commission Minutes
May 9, 1995
,~.
29. Commissioner Anderson stated he was concerned about the potential of a reworking of the
Sports Complex lighting. Even though the lighting was not before the Commission, there
is going to be some mitigation of the lighting in the future, and this may be done by the
lowering of the lighting brackets on the existing towers. Even though the photos do not
show the impact from the west side it will become more prominent as this pole is installed.
He was concerned that the applicant was considering their installation on 75-foot towers
that may not be there in time. It is not a completely solid structure, but it is visible. He
was not in favor of having to get used to things and he felt the Commission should be
sensitive to this type of construction.
313. Commissioner Barrows asked staff what the potential was of the lighting being lowered.
Community Development Jerry Herman stated it was unknown at this time. He reminded
the Commissioners that it was not relevant to the issue before them, and what will happen
to resolve the light problem is not known.
31. Commissioner Butler stated that as the lights are modified and lowered the concern for the
lights in the neighbors yards, as well as the poles will still exist. The technology is
progressing so that in time the need for the poles as well as the apl]earance will decrease
in time. He felt the best case scenario was that the problem would only get better as the
technology improves.
32. Commissioner Newkirk asked staff if relocating the tower to the Highway 111 area was
a possibility. Commissioner Butler stated that the effective use is of the equipment was
only a half mile. Mr. Strozier clarified that the question raised by Commissioner Anderson
was the effectiveness of the radius. He went on to explain how the transmission works.
He stated that if they are to provide service to this part of La I:luinta they must be in this
location.
33. Chairman Adolph reminded the Commission when they reviewed the first submittal for a
tower at the intersection of 52nd Avenue and Jefferson Street. At that time they objected
to a pole being installed in a residential neighborhood. He understood the pole would be up
for a long time. The lighting problem will be altered but the pole would remain. He stated
that he had a strong objection to any poles being installed. He believes Airtouch could find
another location that would service their phones as well.
34. Commissioner Newkirk stated he agreed with chairman Adolph and he did not want to lose
the view.
35. Commissioner Gardner stated he did not agree or disagree. The fact remains that the poles
are there now and nothing is being added. He and all the residents in the area live with the
poles now.
PC5-9
lO
Planning Commission Minutes
. ·
May 9, 1995
36. Commissioner Abels stated that changes will take place. In regards to the Parc La Quinta
poles, they should have been removed a long time ago. He did not believe the pole would
be seen as they were set back as far as it i: and the service provided for the equipment
was a necessity. ·
37. Commissioner Barrows stated that she agree with the statements made by Commissioner
Abels and she also agreed with Chairman A Jolph. She was present when the first pole
came before the Commission and she was ~ot convinced that this pole would not be a
detriment to the area.
38. Commissioner Butler stated the facility wa a necessity for the La Quinta area. If the
applicant stated that another location would ~ot serve the La Quinta area, then moving the
pole was not an option. The poles are alrea( y there and 25-feet of height is not going to
change the impact as the poles are there. He felt it was more an issue of safety and if all
the agencies that had been contacted, had I o objection to the poles neither did he.
39. There being no further discussion, it wa moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Butler to adopt Resolution 95-017 ce tifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
--
Environmental Impact in accordance with th findings set forth in the resolution.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Abels, Buth Gardner. NOES: Commissioners Anderson,
Barrows, Newkirk, an( Chairman Adolph. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAINING: None.
The motion failed on a 3-4-0 vote.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Sign Application 95-306: a request of Lube Shop for a deviation from the sign program for the One
Eleven La O. uinta Shopping Center to allow business ;ignage.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a
copy of which is on file in the Community D ,velopment Department.
2. Commissioner Anderson asked in what w~y did the request not agree with the sign
program of the Center. Staff stated the race way was not a part of the sign program and
the lettering style is not approved. Commis =loner Anderson asked if the size was within
the parameters of the program. Staff state it was in conformance.
3. Chairman Adolph asked if a Pandoras Box ;as being opened by allowing the additional
signs (Oil Change & Carwash) as other ten; ~ts had been denied additional signage.
PC5-9
13.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 9, 1995
4. Commissioner Butler asked for a clarification of what raceway meant. Staff explained
that the raceway is the support for the letters and the area where the wiring is kept. (a
wiring trough.) Commissioner Butler asked who approved the color of the building and he
did not believe it was compatible with the Center. Commissioner Butler asked who was
responsible for the berming on Highway 111. Chairman Adolph stated it was the
responsibility of Shell Oil or whoever develops the corner. Discussion followed regarding
the colors on the sample board.
5. There being no further questions of staff, Mr. Jim Engle, Imperial Sign Company, spoke on
behalf of the applicant and addressed some of the concerns that had been raised.
6. Commissioner Anderson questioned the amount of room for the construction of the sign.
Mr. Engle stated that the attic allows for the room but the construction of the building did
not allow for access to hang the sign. Therefore, a false wall was necessary to install the
sign. Discussion followed regarding alternatives for hanging the sign. The sign would be
texture coated to appear as a part of the building.
7. Commissioner Abels asked for clarification about the number of outlets and he questioned
whether the Commission should deviate from their previous stand.
8. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to clarify what had been allowed previously and why
it was allowed. Staff clarified.
9. Commissioner Anderson stated he had no strong feelings regarding the lettering' style but,
did not agree with the "Carwash" and "Lube Shop" signs. He suggested the sign over the
east side should be duplicated instead of the "Lube Shop" sign.
10. Commissioner Barrows asked if staff had asked for a reduction in the signage. Staff
stated they were recommending a reduction to three square feet for "Carwash" and "Oil
Change".
11. Mr. Engle stated that the "Carwash" and "Oil Change" signs were for directional purposes
to get the customer to the right location. He had no objection to the reduction of three
square feet.
12. Commissioner Abels asked if it would be better to put the signs on the columns. Mr. Engle
stated that if the signs were put on the columns the building would not be balanced as the
signs were designed to be proportional in size.
PC5-9
3.2
Planning Commission Minutes
. .
May 9, 1995
13. Commissioner Gardner stated that relative to south elevation, the raceway was going
to occupy the entire space. Staff stated th ~were recommending the sign be extended
out to the edges horizontally. Commissione~ asked about the vertical portion of
the sign. Mr. Engle stated that the block irotrude out and will hide the sign raceway
from the sides. Staff stated that on the ve 'tiCal they were recommending that the sign
extend to the bottom of the space and they no recommendation for the top.
14. Commissioner Gardner stated that on the nor :h elevation, the "Lube Shop" sign was going
to protrude out 13-inches. Mr. Engle stated he would need 8-inches for the letter and 5-
inches for the raceway. Mr. Engle stated that the intent of sign was to address the
patrons doing business at Wal-Mart and as ims Street opens up it will attract those
customers as well.
15. Commissioner Anderson asked about the oas elevation. Mr. Engle stated that illumination
was not needed and therefore the racewa, was not needed. Commissioner Anderson
asked about externally illuminated signage. Mr. Engle stated that currently the lighting
would be minimal and if flush-mounted non-in :ernally illuminated it would be an aesthetical
concern. Discussion followed.
16. Commissioner Abels asked if Commissioner would like to continue the matter to
give the applicant an opportunity to redesig~ the sign.
17. Chairman Adolph stated that he felt the 13-ir :hes was a very large size and would like to
have the size reduced to no more than six and framed in to appear to be a part of
the building.
18. Mr. Engle stated he could make an illuminate d cabinet to match the building and it would
only protrude §-6 inches without channel let ers. Commissioner Anderson stated that he
would object if plexi-glass was to be use I. Mr. Engle explained further the whole
assembly would only protrude out six inche=
19. Chairman Adolph stated he was not in favor f the lettering and he was concerned about
the compatibility of the sign with the other s gns within the One Eleven La Ouinta Center.
Mr. Engle stated that the owner of the stc re had used this lettering style on all of his
stores and to date he had been successful.
20. Commissioner Barrows stated she had no trong feelings on the lettering style and this
was a corporate logo and would like to giw the local businessman some credit.
PC5-9
13
Planning Commission Minutes
_
May 9, 1995
21. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
AndersonlAbels to adopt Minute Motion 95-021 approving Sign Application 95-306,
subject to the attached conditions as amended. The motion carried with Chairman Adolph
voting No. The condition would be modified to read: "Carwash" and "Oil Change" signs
were to be removed from the south elevation. The "Lube Shope" sign to the north and
south elevations were to be constructed so as not to exceed §-6inches in depth for the
assembly."
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of April 11, 1995, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners ButlerlAbels to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved.
B. There being no corrections to the Minutes of April 25, 1995, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners AndersonlAbels to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved.
VII. OTHER
1. Chairman Adolph gave a report of the City Council meeting of May 2, 1995
__
2. Commissioner Barrows asked who was responsible for the maintenance of the property to the east of
McDonalds. Staff would check into the matter and see that it was cleaned up.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Butler to adjourn this meeting
of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on June 13, 199§. This meeting of the Planning Commission was
adjourned at 9:26 P.M., May 9, 1995. Unanimously approved.
PC5-9
3.4