PCMIN 06 27 1995 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78.49§ Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
June 27, 1995 3:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 3:07 P.M. by Chairman Adolph.
Commissioner Newkirk led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Adolph requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Barrows, Butler,
Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. Commissioners Barrows/Gardner moved and seconded
a motion to excuse Commissioners Anderson. Motion carried unanimously.
-- B Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Start Sawa, Associate Planners.Greg
Trousdell and Leslie Mouriquand, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
~'~ III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
IV. WORKSHOP
A. Continued- Zoning Ordinance Update a request of the City for review and approval of the Zoning
Code Update.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented an update on what material had been covered
and what was to be discussed.
2. As the City Attorney had not joined the meeting yet, Commissioners elected to discuss
Chapter 9.170 (Communication Towers and Equipment) and wait to discuss Chapter
9.160 (Signs).
3. Commissioners discussed various aspects of the towers and their requirements for the
equipment.
4. CHAPTER 9.170- Communication Towers and Equipment
Page 6, Section 9.170.060.1.3.
Correct "...at least four" feet..."
PC6-27 1
Planning Commission Minutes
June 27, 1995
5. Page 8, Section 9.170.070.H.2.
a. "Identify the site .... "
3. The applicant shall provide evidence if the proposed site is located in an urban
residential areas as to why there is no comparable site available outside urban
residential areas.
6. CHAPTER 9.160- Signs
City Attorney Dawn Honeywell gave an explanation of the changes she had requested.
7. Page 2- Table 9-
2. Within residential district signs- building mounted- 1 sq. ft.- no illumination.
4. Remove the word "Memorial".
6. Within a commercial district, small window or building mounted signs, six signs
per premise, six sq. ft.
7. Add "temporary" decorations. Add at the end, "removal shall occur within
seven days after the holiday.
13. .Change to read "In commercial district a glass case display or chalkboard."
14. Delete
15. Delete
8. Page 6.
.: Section 9.160.030
H. Add to the last sentence, "The Director may request the Director of Building
and Safety to order ....
J. Change "reasonable" to "ten days".
9. CHAPTER 9.180- Transportation Demand Management
Staff stated there was no real need to update this section, but if the Commissioners
have any questions or comments, they should be discussed at this time.
10. Page 3.
Section 9.180.030.B.
2. Change Planning and Development to Community Development Department.
11. Page 8
Section 9.180.110- change Planning and Development Department to Community
Development Department.
12. CHAPTER 9.190- Transfer of Development Rights
No changes.
PC6-27 2
Planning Commission Minutes
June 27, 1995
Chairman Adolph recessed the meeting at 5:23 P.M. and reconvened at 7:03 P.M.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Adolph stated that the applicants for Public Hearing #1-Caal Theatres had requested to be placed at the
end of the public hearing portion of the agenda as the project's architect's airplane flight was late. Following the
request, the agenda was reorganized to place Item #2 as Item #1 and Item #1 as Item #2.
A. Specific Plan 121-E. Revised (Amendment #3) and Plot Plan 95-555: a request of Grog Burkhart,
Chief Engineer for the La rluinta Resort and Club, for certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact; approval of specific plan amendment to allow elimination
of part of the northern parking lot of the La Ouinta Resort and Club; and plot plan approval to
allow construction of a 37,000 sq. ft. building addition, which includes a ballroom and
supplemental facilities with a subterranean parking garage in the R-3 Zone on part of a 17.8
acre site.
1. Commissioners Gardner and Anderson withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest.
2. Associate Planner Grog Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department.
3. CommissionerButler asked for clarification of the valet parking area in the sublevel
parking garaoe.
4. Commissioner Newkirk asked for clarification of the valet parking area for the new
building on the east side the drop off area.
5. Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant had met all the environmental needs of the City.
Staff stated that they had met all the requirements.
6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the public hearing.
Mr. Scott Dalecio, speaking on behalf of the applicant, gave the reasons for their
expansion request.
7. Chairman Adolph asked if the loading dock was open on the north (facing Avenida
Fernando) as it could be unsightly and collect a great deal of debris. He asked if it could
be screened. Mr. Dalecio showed a drawing of the dock and explained its construction
and stated they could install oates that could be closed when the facility was not being
used.
PC6.27 3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 27, 1995
8. Chairman Adolph asked about the noise issue raised by local residents. He asked what
the distance was from the new structure to the abutting residents. Mr. Dalecio stated
it was about 75-feet to the nearest resident, but a quarter of a mile to any resident in
Santa Rosa Cove. Mr. Dalecio went on to explain the travel patterns of the area
residents.
9. Chairman Adolph asked if there would be two-way or one-way traffic on Avenida
Fernando. Mr. Dalecio explained the avenue of traffic from both the main entrance as
well as down Avenida Fernando.
10. Chairman Adolph asked if the subterranean parking would also have the valet parking.
Mr. Daliceo stated only as it was necessary. Discussion followed regarding the
traffic/circulation problems.
11. Commissioner Barrows asked if the trees along the northeast side of the property could
be of a box size to provide shade. Mr. Daliceo stated there was landscaping already
present at this location (i.e., citrus trees).
12. Commissioner Barrows asked about the overflow parking that may affect the residents
in the area. Would the traffic/circulation design address this problem? Mr. Daliceo
stated that they felt they had addressed the problem and in addition had placed "No
Parking" signs on Avenida Fernando for Mrs. Loeb in an attempt to control parking in
the area. During special events, Riverside County Sheriff's Department has been hired
to help control parking at their facility.
13. Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant agreed with all the Conditions of Approval. Mr.
Daliceo stated that he questioned Condition #11. They would definitely like to see the
Eisenhower Drive median landscaped and had used their people to help go through the
design for this median and they are willing to assist but need to know the exact amount
for the assessment. They do contribute a large percentage to the City's tax base.
Senior Engineer Steve Speer clarified that if they had contributed to the design of the
median, they would be credited but at this time that amount had not been determined.
14. Chairman Adolph asked if the amount was for the landscaping or design. Steve stated
the estimated cost would not reach ~25,000 for the work done by KSL. Chairman
Adolph stated he felt staff and KSL could resolve the issue. Staff stated previous
design costs could be made a part of the credit program.
15. Mr. Tom Hill, Santa Rosa Cove developer representing the Ohio Citizen's Investment,
stated the Commission is taking their 128 + units and applyino the density to this
project; they would not be able to build more than 110 units on their other site. Jerry
stated that 121-E specifically identified the number of units (_t. 110 units east of
PC6.27 4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 27, 1995
Eisenhower Drive) and the applicants would have to come back and amend the specific
plan anyway. Discussion followed regarding the density distribution of the site.
18. Mr. Bill Puget, 77-600 Avenida Fernando, property owner north of the site. They had
constructed a wall in defense of the development of the Hotel in 1989. Now with this
expansion they were concerned with the height, noise, and screening of the parking lot.
Have met with the developers, received a very sensitive response and have come to a
resolution with the primary concerns. Therefore, they have no objection to the project
· proceeding.
17. There being no further discussion, Chairman Adolph closed the public hearing and
opened the matter up for Commission discussion.
18. Commissioner Butler commended the staff on the report and felt it was an excellent
presentation. Commissioners Abels and Newkirk agreed.
19. Staff clarified the conditions: 1) gates be installed and added to the Conditions of
Approval; and 2) potential credit for the design work be given to KSL.
20. Commissioner Barrows asked staff to clarify whether Mr. Hill would be able to come
back and apply. Staff stated they would have the right to apply and ask for the
density.
21. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
AbelslBarrows to adopt Resolution 95-022 recommending to the City Council
concurrence with the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact according to the Findings.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Barrows, Butler, Newkirk, and Chairman
Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson and Gardner.
ABSTAIN: None.
22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Resolution 95-023
recommending to the City Council approval of Revised Specific Plan 121-E (Amendment
#3), subject to the Conditions of Approval as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Barrows, Butler, Newkirk, and Chairman
Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson and Gardner
ABSTAIN: None.
23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion
95-024 approving Plot Plan 95-555, subject to the Conditions of Approval as amended.
Unanimously approved with Commissioners Anderson and Gardner absent.
PC6.27 5
Planning Commission Minutes
June 27, 1995
B. Continued- Environmental Assessment 95-301 and Plot Plan 95-554: a request of Caal
Theatres for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and
approval of a plot plan to allow the construction of a 30,000 square foot 8-plex
theater.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a
copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff stated that
changes had been made to the Conditions of Approval to reflect the applicant's
submittal.
2. Commissioner Barrows asked about Condition #21.C. and #21.B. to clarify the type of
trees to be planted. Staff clarified the trees to be planted in the planter.
3. Commissioner Barrows asked how many bicycle racks would be required in Condition
#16. Staff stated there was no specific formula to determine the number. It would be
determined by staff (a minimum size to accommodate ten bicycles).
4. Commissioner Barrows asked staff to clarify the exposure of the neon lighting. Staff
stated the conditions require the neon tubing to be hidden and be indirect lighting.
5. Chairman Adolph asked if the color of the neon was submitted. Staff stated it was
turquoise-blue.
6. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to clarify the proposed design of the downspouts on
the back of the building. Staff explained the construction of the false pilaster to be
constructed to hide the downspouts.
7. Chairman Adolph asked if the downspout could be stuccoed to blend in With the
building. Staff stated the conditions could be amended to address this request.
8. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification of the height of the building at the tower.
Staff explained the highest tower would be 44'10". The parapet would be 35'4".
Commissioner Barrows stated this is 14' above the highest point of the Albertson's
building. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the height of the
building was within the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. Chairman Adolph asked if the request before them included the landscaping and signs.
Staff stated the signs would come back to the Planning Commission and the
landscaping would be approved by staff, based on the conditions at this time.
10. Commissioner Anderson stated that at the last meeting he had asked to see an overall
site plan showing the parking for the entire center. Staff displayed the overall site plan
of the Center and explained the area affected by the parking of the theater. Discussion
followed relative to the peak period parking needs.
PC6-27 6
Planning Commission Minutes
June 27, 1995
11. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the public hearing
and asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Mr. Roger Thorpe,
representing the applicant, addressed the Commission regarding the concerns that had
been raised.
12. Mr. Thorpe clarified the height of the building. He stated that the highest points were
to draw attention the theater. He went on to explain the purpose for the building
height (i.e., the movie screen), sound quality, and the mechanical space needed. The
neon lighting is needed because the structure is at the rear of the center and behind
several satellite pad sites. It is important to distinguish this building from the other
buildings in the Center. Therefore, it is necessary to have the exposed neon to draw
attention to the building. The blue neon is softer and will not make a loud statement.
Need to have the ability to express that they are a theater with the neon lighting and in
addition they do not feel it is fair to require them to landscape the rear of the building
when no other building tenant has been required to. He displayed pictures of the
existing Oleanders that are planted in the rear of the site. They feel this is sufficient
landscaping to guide any future development north of the property. Requiring
landscaping is a hardship to his client.
13. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on the downspout and false pilaster.
The separation between the stucco and textcoat would appear as a vertical line. Mr.
Thorpe stated yes.
14. Commissioner Anderson stated he understood the reason for the air conditioning space
in the attic of the building, but what is the size of the ducts and returns? Mr. Thorpe
explained. Discussion followed regarding the installation of the duct work in
conjunction with the mechanical equipment in the building attic.
15. Commissioner Anderson stated that on the tower structure of the other buildings in the
center do not use it as a sign. Has any other area been looked at to relocate the sign.
Mr. Thorpe stated that the sign people have looked at all the options and this was the
best suited location for patrons to see the sign from Highway 111. The sign was vital
to the project for visibility and identification.
16. Commissioner Abels stated he approved of the project as designed.
17. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to clarify the effect of the lighting on the Dark Sky
Ordinance. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Code allowed
exposed neon.
18. Commissioner Barrows asked where neon lighting had been approved at other sites.
Staff stated the only other site was the Jefferson Square project, but it was indirect
lighting. Discussion followed as to the neon lighting.
PC6.27 7
Planning Commission Minutes
June 27, 199§
19. Commissioner Gardner asked for clarification of the installation as to whether they are
open and exposed or hidden under the cornice. Mr. Thorpe explained the installation
(exposed) and staff displayed the elevation drawing.
20. Commissioner Newkirk stated he felt this was a very subdued presentation (because
blue neon was being used) and he agreed with the applicant.
21. Commissioner Butler stated he agreed that landscaping at the rear of the building was
not necessary. He would like to see the sign program before it is approved and as a
concession, shine the neon light down, maybe with a lip of wood installed to direct the
light down. Mr. Thorpe stated that the effect of covering caused it a to be a covered
laminar. To gain the effect of the neon, which is an effect associated with going to the
movies, they would need to have it exposed.
22. Commissioner Barrows asked if there was another light medium they could use to keep
the effect. Mr. Thorpe explained florescent lighting would be used if the light source
had to be shielded.
23. Commissioner Abels stated this was a movie theater and there must be a give and take
and this proposal has been done very tastefully.
24. Commissioner Anderson stated he was concerned about the neon, but was not entirely
opposed to it. If it is recessed and shielded it does lose its affect. He was willing to
allow the neon.
25. Commissioner Barrows agreed that even though the landscaping would add to the north
side of the building, she did not feel it was necessary. The landscaping on the south
elevation where the Eucalyptus are shown, what are the height of the plants. Mr.
Thorpe stated they would be 20-feet. Commissioner Barrows asked if there was a
bench and if none, where would the applicant expect the patrons to wait. Mr. Thorpe
stated there is one bench and probably be more, as well as the grass and art work.
Commissioner Barrows suggested that a few extra Palm Trees would soften the effect
of the building and give some added shade.
26. Chairman Adolph asked if each theater is individually air conditioned. Mr. Thorpe stated
each had its own air conditioning unit.
27. Chairman Adolph stated he had no objection to the neon lighting and the landscaping
does need some attention to clustering the palms and trees for shade.
28. There being no further public comment, Chairman Adolph closed the public hearing.
PC6-27 8
Planning Commission Minutes
June 27, 1995
29. Commissioner Anderson expressed his concern for the signage and would address it
when presented.
30. Commissioner Barrows stated she felt additional landscaping should be added to the
design for shade. Staff stated that Condition #21.A. would require additional
landscaping.
31. Community Development Director Jerry Herman pointed out the changes to the
Conditions of Approval. They were:
Condition #16 8-10 bike racks.
Condition 18 deleted
Condition 21.A. add more trees
Condition 21.C. deleted
32. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to adopt Resolution 95-024
certifying a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental
Assessment 95-301 prepared for Plot Plan 95-554.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk,
and Chairman Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
33. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 95-
025 approving Plot Plan 95-554, subject to the amended conditions. Unanimously
approved.
C. Plot Plan 95-558 (Compatibility Review); a request of Landau Development for approval of a
new single family unit for construction in the Lake La Ouinta project.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a
copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff pointed out
that the rear of the house does face west and the applicant has show a substantial
overhand which does conform with the Planning Commissions's policy.
2. Commissioner Anderson asked if a materials board had been submitted. Staff displayed
and explained the colors submitted.
3. There beino no further questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the public hearing.
Mr. Wendel Veith, architect for the project, stated he was there to address the
Commission regarding any questions they may have.
PC6.27 9
Planning Commission Minutes
June 27, 1995
4. Chairman Adolph asked for clarification on the number of units to be built. Staff stated
one is proposed.
5. Mr. Jim LaLoggia, project director for Lake La 13uinta, and he finds the design is
consistent with the project.
8. There being no further public comment, Chairman Adolph closed the public hearing.
7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Abels to adopt Minute Motion
95-028 approving Plot Plan 95-558, subject to the conditions as submitted.
Unanimously approved.
D. Tentative Tract 28189. Change of Zone 95-078, Conditional Use Permit 93-005: a request of
Winchester Asset Management for approval to subdivide six existing lots into 11 lots within The
I:luarry project, change the existing zoning from R-1-20,000 to R-1-10,000; and to eliminate an
existing conditional use permit.
1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Bevelopment Bepartment.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the public hearing. Mr.
Mike Rowe, The Keith Companies, spoke on behalf of the applicant.
3. Commissioner Gardner asked if the applicant would return to the Commission to have
the lots across the street split as well. Mr. Rowe stated that these lots were being
split because they were not on the golf course and offer a different market product.
4. There being no further public comment, Chairman Adolph closed the public hearing.
5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Gardner to adopt Resolution
95-025, recommending to the City Council certification of the Negative Beclaration of
environmental impact for the project.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk,
and Chairman Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Butler to adopt Resolution 95-
026, recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 95-078, as
proposed.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk,
and Chairman Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
PC6-27 10
Planning Commission Minutes
--
June 27, 1995
7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Abels to adopt Resolution 95-
027, recommending to the City Council approval of the elimination of the Conditional
Use Permit 93-005 as it applies to proposed Tentative Tract 28189.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk,
and Chairman Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
8. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Abels to adopt Resolution 95-
028, recommending to the City Council approval of the proposed Tentative Tract 2189,
subject to the conditions as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk,
and Chairman Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Plot Plan 95-556: a request of Washington Plaza Associates for appeal of staff's denial of an
extension of time for a temporary construction trailer at the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping
Center.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff
.: report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Adolph asked staff to clarify their reason for removal of the trailer. When
does staff want the trailer removed. Staff stated they .were asking the Commission to
deny the applicant's request and have the trailer removed. Staff is asking for removal
of the trailer within ten days. Discussion followed as to the options available to the
applicant.
3. Mr. Michael Shovlin and Mr. Tom Gruebel spoke on behalf of their request and the
reason for their request.
4. Commissioner Abels asked if the trailer was in use now. Mr. Shovlin stated it was in
use.
5. Commissioner Gardner asked why there was a billboard advertising prospective tenants
call a number for leasing information. Mr. Gruebel stated that is his office in Costa
Mesa and when there is a prospective tenant, he.makes arrangements to meet them at
--
the site. The trailer is also used by Center management personnel.
6. Commissioner Abels asked what treatment would be given to the trailer to dress it up.
Mr. Shovlin stated there would be additional landscaping and painting to dress the
trailer up.
PC6.27 11
Planning Commission Minutes
June 27, 1995
7. Commissioner Anderson asked if ultimately the Center would have on-site property
management offices. Mr. Gruebel stated it would be determined as the Center is built-
out. It depends on the amount and number of tenants and the agreement made with
the tenants. The mix will determine the type of management needed.
8. Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant would be back in another year for another one
year extension. Mr. Gruebel stated it would depend on the building program in the next
year.
9. Commissioner Anderson asked when the theater would be completed. Mr. Grueble
stated it should be completed by the first quarter of 1996. Commissioner Anderson
asked if the additional buildings would be constructed, hopefully, in conjunction with
the theater construction. At the completion of the shops next to the theater, what
percentage would be built out? Mr. Gruebel stated about 50% build-out. Commissioner
Anderson stated that based on the previously conversation, this would not be enough to
generate on-site property management. Discussion followed.
10. Commissioner Barrows asked what the time period was they were requesting for the
extension. Mr. Shovlin stated they would like more than a one year, but City policy only
allows s one year permit.
11. Commissioner Abels stated the theater would generate additional interest for the
· : Center and he would recommend the one year extension provided the site improvements
were made.
12. Commissioner Gardner stated that being in the construction business, it is transitory,
and what would be their objection to moving to one of the empty buildings. Mr. Shovlin
stated he would have to pay rent to himself. Mr. Gruebel stated the ultimate goal is to
lease all the empty offices. Commissioner Gardner stated the use of the empty shops
would 9ive a more permanent feeling to the prospective tenants.
13. Commissioner Anderson asked if there were any empty shops at present. Mr. Gruebel
explained what was there.
14. Commissioner Abels stated that if the Commission looked at the overall picture, and if
Mr. Shovlin would agree to conditions, it would be a suitable solution.
15. Staff asked that if the Commission approved the extension, the applicant would return
to the Planning Commission for an extension request.
16. Commissioner Gardner asked how the suggestions would be enforced. Commissioners
Barrows stated the approval would be contingent upon the conditions being met.
PC$-27 12
Planning Commission Minutes
June 27, 1995
17. There being no further discussion, Commissioners AbelslNewkirk moved to adopt
Minute Motion 95-027, approving the request of the applicant to leave the existing
temporary trailer in its present location for another one-year period provided the
improvements to the trailer and surrounding area, identified in the applicant's letter of
May 25, 1995, are completed in the next 30-days, and that the original conditions of
Plot Plan 95-483 are met, and that any further requests for an extension be brought
back to the Planning Commission for their approval.
B. Plot Plan 94-541 (Amendment #1); a request of Vintage Homes, a Division of Century Homes for
approval of a typical front yard preliminary landscaping plans for use in conjunction with circular
driveways.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a
copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff pointed out
that the applicant would be required to have three trees.
2. Commissioner Abels asked if staff had looked at the units in Ocotillo built by Century
Homes, and this was a lot of concrete.
3. Commissioner Anderson asked to what extent did the applicant take liberties and not
meet the landscaping requirements. Staff explained the landscaping that was missing.
.: 4. Commissioner Barrows asked how the Commission could verify the landscaping is
there. Community Development Director Jerry Herman suggested the Commission
continue the item and have the applicant verify the landscaping being installed.
5. Commissioner Butler stated he though berming was required. Staff stated there was
discussion regarding the berming, but it was never made a condition of Rancho Ocotillo.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Anderson to continue the item for two weeks to allow the applicant to submit
additional landscaping planting,, berming, planting of trees, etc. Unanimously approved.
VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of June 13, 1995, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Gardner/Barrows to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Bylaws- Elections: Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified the information
contained in the staff report.
PC6-27 13
Planning Commission Minutes
June 27, 1995
1. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Anderson to accept the change to
the Bylaws as submitted. Unanimously approved.
2. Commissioners Butler nominated Commissioner Abels for the office of Chairman.
Commissioner Gardner seconded the motion and moved to close the nominations and
unanimously approve Commissioner Abels nomination as Chairman. Unanimously
approved.
3. Commissioner Abels nominated Commissioner Gardner as Vice Chairman. Commissioner
Newkirk seconded the motion and moved to close the nominations and unanimously
approve Commissioner Gardner as Vice Chairman. Unanimously approved.
B. August meeting dates
1. Following discussion, it was moved by Commissioners Abels/Barrows to go dark at their
regular meeting of August 22nd. Unanimously approved.
C. Commissioner Barrows gave a brief report of the Council meeting of June 20, 1995.
D. Chairman Adolph asked about a condition regarding chainlink fences and a chainlink fence on
Jefferson Street for the Citrus Course. Staff stated this was a temporary fence for the
construction of the new units.
X. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Abels to adjourn this
meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on July 11, 1995. This meeting of the planning
Commission was adjourned at 10:30 P.M., June 27, 1995.
PC6-27 14