PCMIN 04 23 1996 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
April 23, 1996 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by
Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Anderson to lead the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows,
Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels.
B. Staffpresent: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
A Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineers Steve Speer and
John Freeland, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Tentative Tract 28343; a request of TD'Desert Development, Mr. Tom Cullinan, for
approval of a subdivision consiSting of 23.5 acres into 74 single family and other
amenity lots.
1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public hearing.
3. Mr. Tom Cullinan, representing the applicant, TD Desert Development,
stated he had met with the Parc La Quinta Homeowners' Association. The
homeowners were very clear that they did not want the well site at the
proposed location. He was therefore proposing to move Lot 31, at end of the
-- cul-de-sac, and creating two additional residential lots to replace the well site.
Discussion followed regarding the site and proposed location for the well.
PC4-23 1
-_
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1996
4. Commissioner Butler asked if the new well site, proposed outside of the
tentative tract, would be a problem to the residents at a later date. Mr.
Cullinan stated he did not believe it would and showed a possible location for
the well. Commissioner Butler asked if CVWD had proposed any locations
within the development for the well. Mr. Cullinan stated CVWD only
required Rancho La Quinta to have eight well sites and they could not be
closer than 1,000 feet to each other.
5. Chairman Abels asked if the residents had been informed of the new location
for the well and if any objections had been raised. Mr. Cullinan stated he had
discussed the proposed well location, but the residents had not expressed any
concern.
6. Commissioner Butler asked if a 40 dba noise level was possible for the well
site. Mr. Cullinan stated this was the information he had received from their
consultant.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked if the residents had any noise concerns regarding
the placement of the common area pool. Mr. Cullinan stated it was not an
issue at the homeowners meeting.
8. Mr. Peter Murray, 49-005 Quimerra Court, stated he wanted to thank Mr.
Cullinan for working with them to solve this problem and he concurred with
Mr. Cullinan that the meeting went well. He further stated the location of the
pool was not an issue nor were the proposed home sites to replace the well
site.
9. Staff suggested modifications to the conditions. Planning Manager Christine
di Iorio reviewed the condition modifications: Condition #54: Prior to
issuance of final map, the well site (Lot 7) shall be deleted and substituted
with residential lots. Condition #50: Prior to issuance of final map, relocate
Lot 31 in accordance with the Specific Plan requiring a 50-foot building
setback along all property lines.
10. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public
heating.
11. Commissioner Anderson stated he was comfortable with the fact that the two
parties had met and came to a satisfactory conclusion to the problem and any
details could be worked out with staff.
PC4-23 2
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1996
12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Barrows/Butler to adopt Resolution 96-011, recommending
to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 28343, .subject to the
Findings and Conditions as amended.
ROLL CALL:AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner,
Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAIN: None
B. General Plan Amendment 96-052 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 96-050; a
'request of the City for certification of the Environmental Assessment, approval of the
General Plan Land Use Element Text Amendment, and update of Title 9 of the La
Quinta Municipal Code and a recommendation to repeal various Municipal Code
Chapters.
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 noted the changes as follows: the Planning Commission
Resolution adopting the Environmental Assessment needs to be corrected by
deleting the words "Mitigated" in reference to the Negative Declaration. In
addition, the reference to the "Inclusionary Zoning" requirements were
recommended for deletion; Exhibit "A" of the General Plan Amendment has
been revised; Section 9.30.100.D. Development Standards for the Rural
Residential Overlay; Retail Commercial parking requirements in Section
9.150.Table 9.12 has been revised.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff; there being none,
the public heating was opened.
3. Mr. Ed Kibbey, representing the BIA Desert Chapter, stated that their review
of the report was not complete, they would like to request the Planning
Commission continue this issue to allow time to review all the contents. He
stated they had submitted a draft letter addressing some of their concerns, but
additional time was needed for an in-depth review. Chairman Abels stated
the letter from the BIA had been received by the Planning Commission
during their study session and the Planning Commission would need time to
review the letter.
4. Mr. Marvin Roos, Chairman of BIA Legislative Affairs Committee, stated he
had major concerns with the document. He noted that the floor area ratio
requirement had been deleted and he was unaware if the General Plan
building intensity issue had been replaced in another part of the document.
State Law requires the General Plan identify the commercial building
intensity. They have a concern about eliminating the policy on the 10%
PC4-23 3
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1996
density b~)nus. He asked which projects are specifically grandfathered in in
terms of meeting development standards. He requested that an analysis of the
projects and the impact the new standards would have on them. They
question whether the Zoning Ordinance should address specific issues such
as fencing or the definition of bedrooms. These could be dealt with in a
Building Code Amendment. Once the ordinance is in effect, over time there
may be a need for flexibility in the standards. Fence and building pad heights
need some flexibility for the Director to have authority to act upon. Market
and cost decisions determine such items as three car garages and the like.
Requiting these adds to the cost and are micro managing project development
rather than setting community standards. Lastly, they believe the proposed
ordinance is largely regressive and is not open to the kinds of progressive
planning and building programs the Valley will be looking at over the next
ten years. The changes over the next five years are going to accelerate rather
than slowing down. The section on driveway and street visibility setbacks
creates a problem for a property owner. Regulations regarding the size of
wood gates may be better suited in the Uniform Building Code. Section
9.65.020(D)(6)(c) on shading for parking or pedestrian areas in the downtown
area needs to be defined. Prohibiting blank walls in the Village, should be
changed to say "discourage" instead of prohibited. In the Downtown area,
the pedestrian landscape shading requirements are too aggressive where they
--
ask for the landscaping to be mature within two years. Seven to ten years to
reach maturity is normal. A variety of public and semi-public uses are
exempted from Zoning Ordinance regulations by State Law, Government
Code 53090, and the Ordinance requires these uses to apply for Conditional
Use Permits. The Code requires trash enclosures to have trellis'. Some fire
departments are wanting sprinklers installed as this is an area where fires are
started. The City may want to look at requiting landscaping instead as it
requires less maintenance and deterioration. The new requirement states that
a recycling plan is required with any new development. Needs good basic
guidelines that could be researched and developed by the City and CVAG.
The Table that deals with all the rooms in the house that may be considered
a bedroom is necessary, and again the Building Code is very specific and
adequate to address this. They are very concerned about Table 9-11
regarding three garages and guest parking. Has there been any research to
back up the standards for guest parking and how would this be calculated.
The retail and commercial uses on Table 9-12 appear to require excessive
parking. In particular, the additional parking for restaurants and shopping
centers is regressive as these uses can share parking. Under hotels, the
amount of parking should go down as facilities grow larger. Bicycles and
golf carts should be encouraged and count towards required parking as well
as other modes of transportation. Authorization for minor adjustments
should include variance type findings to insure that such modifications are
not the granting of a special privilege. The BIA concur with the deletion of
PC4-23 4
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1996
Inclusionary Zoning, would like to reinstate the director's approval of
compatibility, and the page numbering system makes it hard to fred your way
through the document.
5. Mr. Ed' Kibbey, BIA, asked for a continuance of the heating to consider the
document further.
6. Mrs. Sharon Kanlian, 50-400 Jefferson, stated she had questions regarding
the Equestrian Overlay portion of the General Plan Amendment and she
would like to have the answers and clarification regarding these questions at
this meeting. On Page 68.E. 1 regarding composted manure, she would like
to know by whose standards are these materials being measured and whose
industry guidelines will the City use. Need to state these in the Code so Code
Enforcement is able to enforcement them. She encouraged the Planning
Commission to redefine this Section with more detail so there are guidelines
to be referred to regarding properly composted manure. On Friday, after
receiving a copy of the staff report, they spoke with staff conceming Page 69,
Sections G. and H. lighting and loud speakers, and were informed these
would fall under the guidelines of a CUP for a commercial equestrian facility.
-- On Monday, a different staff person re-educated them that as written, lights
and amplification can be installed by anyone in the Equestrian Overlay
District. This is far more liberal than the current guidelines enforced today.
So the grandfathering rule does not apply either. They have a hard time
understanding this ruling and could someone please explain why this is left
so vague. Regarding the site plan submitted by Rancho del Sol, should this
not be marked "proposed" for those items that are not yet built. If this is so,
then under the current regulations lights would not be allowed.
7. Mr. Walter Hansch, Jefferson Street property owner, stated the City has been
dealing with this issue of smell and health for years and now noise and lights.
He did not feel there was a need to have a circus regarding this issue. This
is a small business venture and it will have a negative effect on the
neighboring properties.
8. Mr. Sonny Kanlian, 50400 Jefferson Street, La Quinta, stated he echoes his
wife's requests to have answers at this meeting. Further on Page 67, Section
B.6. regarding the spreading areas he would like to see them located further
away from adjacent properties and domestic wells. He did want to see any
manure or heavy watering along the property line. As stated at the last
--- meeting, the Health Department recommends 100 feet from any domestic
well. His well is an older well and does not have the annular seal therefore
earthquakes, time, and wear can cause these seals to leak and the surface
PC4-23 5
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1996
water can seep by and get under the claylands. The manure problem has not
been answered properly. Temperature and moisture are the two most
important factors in breeding cycles of vertebras and insects. One generation
of flies can go 12-14 days. The manure, if composted need to be done
properly and the ability to have a strong Code Enforcement to enforcement
this. It has to be policed and policed properly and he cannot check to see that
it is done properly. In addition, he was very disturbed that he could get a
report on Friday and on Monday it is 100 degrees turned around. He was
assured that lights would not be allowed and now there is a site plan
submitted for lights and loudspeakers. He asked if there was a resolution to
prevent lights and loudspeakers fi.om being installed until this process is
resolved. 'Staff informed them that they would not be allowed until the
Zoning Code is resolved. Now staff informs them they cannot prevent them
fi.om installing the lights and loudspeakers. Staff stated that because it was
submitted it can be allowed. This is a tremendous noise and light factor to
impose on 200 potential homes. This needs to go through the conditional use
permit process as suggested.
9. Mrs. Wanda Reese, 80-209 Avenue 50, La Quinta, stated she is glad that she
doesn't lives in Russia where everything is controlled. In reference to the use
of light and amplification of sound, they would be used very seldom. The
lights proposed are no different than those used for tennis courts. As far as
noise and circus affect, this does not take place either. They are giving
lessons and usually pretty quiet. She is very surprised at the comments made
by her neighbors and she is confused about the obsession with manure. She
did not know if the Code Enforcement Department would want to inspect
their handling of manure each day, but she felt it was ridiculous to get this
particular about horse manure. If there is too much there, it is hauled tO an
organic farmer or used on the site by mixing it into the soil. As far as flies,
they do not go more than 150 feet from where they are hatched. She stated
she had read the report and the proposed changes and commends staff on
their work. She would like to see this approved without any additional time
being taken on this matter.
10. Mr. Robert Kuhl, 54-721 Monroe Street, stated he had several areas of
concern. First he could not understand the reduction of five to three horses
per acre. When he was annexed into La Quinta he was guaranteed he would
be allowed to keep the five horses per acre as he had under the County. In
addition, he would like to ability to use his entire lot. The setbacks proposed
are a problem. If I own the land, I feel I should be able to use the land. He
did not understand the reason for a setback that would be non-productive.
The problems with the flies and manure, is unfounded. His horses are almost
PC4-23 6
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1996
in his front yard, his wife has emphysema, and they have no problem with
flies or smells. They are very conscious of potential problems and don't want
to cause any problems for themselves or their neighbors. Th~ proposed
treatment of manure is not practical. To'separate the green manure from the
brown manure cannot be done and he did not see a reason for it. He has
never been involved in any study sessions, and has not received any
notification of the meetings. If there are to be any more meetings he would
like to be informed so he could give input.
11. Mr. Harry Loukatos, 77-625 California Drive, Palm Desert, stated he was a
farmer in La Quinta and in reference to the "Right to Farm" in this County,
and according to Civil Code 3482.5-Agriculture Activity Not a Nuisance'.'
gives him the right to farm within the City of La Quinta. The Code reads:
"City and County or other political subdivision of the state...this section shall
prevail over any contrary provision of any ordinance or regulation of any city
Or county, or other." Please take these into consideration regarding his right
to farm in the City when making these changes.
12. Mr. Bill Hobin, P. O, Box 1437, Palm Desert, asked that the Planning
Commission consider under the Commercial Park Zone increasing the floor
area ratio (FAR) to .35. This is a light industrial zone and .25 is less than
feasible from an economic development standpoint. He would request the
Planning Commission take another look at this.
13. Mrs. Julie Reeske, 54-415 Avenida Vallejo, spoke regarding the Equestrian
Overlay. She stated that due to the summer heat it was important to have the
lights to ride at night.
14. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public
hearing. Commissioner Anderson addressed issues raised by Mr. Roos. He
stated there needed to be an analysis' regarding the entitled projects and hOw
the new zoning may affect them. He requested staff put a list together to
show who would be affected. As far as trellis screening over trash and fire
sprinkling, he has not faced this yet in his profession, but the fire department
does make changes and suggested staff review this. The City has accepted
the ULI Parking analysis and he assumed they would continue to do so. As
far as retail commercial is' concerned, the City has a decent standard and the
City should continue to support other forms of transportation. He thought
the Planning Commission was open to any shared parking ideas an applicant
would like to submit. He also agreed with authorization for minor adjustment
to be set up with variance type of findings. It would save the City from
potential problems happening. He thanked the BIA for their comments.
PC4-23 7
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1996
15. Commissioner Barrows asked Mr. Roos to explain what he meant by his
statement that the ordinance might be regressive. She asked Mr. Roos to
clarify what he was referring to in relation to commercial and residential
changes. In further comments, could he provide specifics as to the issues
they are concerned with and relative to non-automotive transportation.
16. Commissioner Newkirk stated that due to the number of questions raised, this
item needs to be continued.
17. Chairman Abels stated that in view of the information that had been received,
he recommended this item be continued for two weeks to give staff time to
review the questions asked and be prepared to address them. Commissioner
Anderson asked about the Equestrian Overlay District. In particular, Page
66-Development Standards, the questions raised by Mrs. Kanlian are
reasonable and the way it is worded may be confusing. Would a public
address system and lights be allowed under any commercial horse use? If
there are existing guidelines and standards available, perhaps staff can look
into this. Lastly, why has the number of horses allowed per acre changed
from five to three?
18. Commissioner Tyler questioned if the interpretation of Equestrian
requirements had changed over the weekend then it needed to be addressed
and he would support the continuance. The BIA comments need to be
reviewed in detail.
19. Chairman Abels asked staff to explain why there appeared to be changes to
the ordinance as stated by Mrs. Kanlian. Associate Planner Wally Nesbit
stated he had spoken with Mrs. Kanlian regarding the manure composting
and the spreading area setback and had explained to her that the City has no
set standard for the handling of manure, and had received information and
ordinances from other cities. The City's existing ordinance does not have a
standard. As the ordinance is currently written, manure can be spread right
to the property line. Therefore, staff added a requirement to offer a
compromise to allow the spreading of manure. Manure spreading is not
allowed unless it is part of a CUP application for a new commercial operation
and supplemented with a manure control program. Regarding composting
standards, staff was unable to come up with any standards from any of the
local waste management companies and was in the process of researching
the State guidelines. Regarding lighting and sound amplification, the City
currently does not have standards or a permit process. Sound amplification
would be monitored by the Code Enforcement Department for sound levels.
The Equestrian Overlay District is regulated by the current lighting
regulations. The current ordinance is being misinterpreted. The development
standards apply to all equestrian overlay properties. As they are written, they
PC4-23 8
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1996
do apply, but commercial equestrian facilities or uses may be subject to more
restrictive requirements through the CUP process. As this applies to lighting
and sound amplification issues, any lighting proposal must comply to the
Outdoor Lighting Control requirements as applicable in the current Code or
no later than 9:00 P.M. The CUP process could modify these regulations. In
addition, staff talked about the pasture fencing, and informed Mrs. Kanlian
that there is no setback required for pasture fencing. If the fencing does not
extend to the property line in order to allow a reasonable area to maintain the
property line and that fencing, staff is recommending, an area of 1 O-feet. A
Section was also added for open area fencing that is not addressed in other
areas of the ordinance, but this would not be required until a modification or
intensifying of the use in accordance with the nonconformity section was
made to the property.
20. Mr. Larry Lawrence asked if the Zoning Ordinance update was to be
Continued to May 14th. Staff stated yes. Mr. Lawrence added that in regards
to previously approved plans Section 9.270.070-Nonconformities does
address this and he went on to clarify the wording.
21. No further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Gardner/Barrows to continue to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission at May 14, 1996. Unanimously approved.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Setback Adjustment 96-394; a request of Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Pierce to appeal the
Community Development Director's denial of setback adjustments for the from yard,
rear yard, and garage setback on the exterior side yard for a new residence located
southwest of the intersection of Calle Potrero and Avenida Juarez.
1. Principal Planner Start Sawa presented the information contained-in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Anderson asked staff to clarify which street frontage is
considered by the City to be the front of the house when it is located on a
comer. Principal Planner Stan Sawa clarified that the front is determined by
which frontage is the narrower of the two. Discussion followed. Planning
Manager Christine di Iorio stated that this is referenced in the Architectural
-- Design Manual.
PC4-23 9
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1996
--
3. Mr. Doug Phillips, lawyer for the appellants, stated one of the most important
concerns to the applicant is the placement of the garage. He went on to state
the reasons they thought justified their applying for and receiving a variance:
A) Special Circumstances: 1) the lot is 7,500 square feet and not very large;
2) its shape is 75-feet wide and 100-feet long, very narrow; and 3) located on
the corner with a radius causing less buildable area.
B) Depravation to the Property Owner: Mr. Phillips stated there are ten
locations located nearby where there are setback deviations for garages that
had been approved by the County or the City. Discussion followed regarding
the examples supplied by the applicant.
C) What exits now is a vacant lot with debris, what the City will get is a new
home built by local developer. The applicants need the same consideration
and flexibility as they believe has been afforded to other property owners in
the same vicinity.
4. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that staff would
clarify the ten houses setbacks referred to by the appellant. Two setback
adjustments were due to street vacation and irregular shape triangular lots.
5. Commissioner Anderson stated most of the examples of the sites were homes
constructed before City incorporation and the City had no control over what
was constructed. Therefore, a lot of homes were built with minimum zoning
restrictions. For homes built after incorporation, one is located on a new cul-
de-sac created by the City, which created the deviation. A 7,500 square foot
lot is not difficult to build or design a home on. In reviewing the proposed
house plan, some changes could be made to allow the house to exist on the
lot. The problem appears to be that the plans were drawn before the lot was
selected and this is not grounds to grant a variance.
6. Commissioner Barrows stated she did not believe that the conditions stated
by the applicant warranted the setback adjustment. The lot configuration
does not warrant a variance.
7. Commissioner Butler stated he concurred with Commissioners Anderson and
Barrows in that the house is too large for the property. The applicant should
reconfigure the house to bring it into compliance with the setback
requirements.
8. Commissioner Gardner stated the house does take up a great deal of the lot
and detracts from the property. If this variance were approved it would create
a problem of others asking for variances.
PC4-23 10
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1996
9. Commissioner Newkirk stated he concurred with what had been said. It
would set a precedent for future problems.
10. Commissioner Tyler asked Mr. Phillips to clarify why the appellant's appeal
letter stated that the determination of the setbacks, stated in the City's letter
was mis-read. Mr. Phillips stated that based on the basis of the applicant's
position, a variance would be proper. They have no problem with staff's
interpretation, however La Quinta did inherit the small lots from the County
with houses already built. This is why so many of the setbacks for the older
homes were granted. Now, the applicant has a vacant lot and is asking the
City to apply the same standards and give flexibility to this property owner.
11. Commissioner Anderson stated he understood the point, but should one of
these homes be destroyed, he would have to build in accordance with the new
Code requirements. In this instance the City has existing nonconforming uses
but, they are not the grounds to grant a variance Mr. Phillips asked if there
was anything else this owner could do to solve this problem. Is there a
suggestion by the Commissioners to solve this problem.
12. Commissioner Anderson stated it was a matter of reconfiguring the house;
reconfigure the circulation plan of the house. Commissioner Anderson stated
he could not specifically make a suggestion, but would relay some ideas to
staff.
13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Gardner/Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 96-015, denying the
appeal of the appellant, and upholding the decision of the Community
Development Director. Unanimously approved.
B. Street Vacation 96-030 and 96-031; a request of the City for determination of
General Plan Consistency findings with proposed street vacations for portions of
Avenida Cortez, Avenida Herrera, Avenida Juarez, Avenida Madero, Avenida
Martinez, Avenida Mendoza, Avenida Montezuma, Avenida Velasco, Avenida Villa,
Calle Chillon, Calle Portero, Calle Temecula, and Eisenhower Drive.
1. Senior Engineer Steve Speer presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Butler asked staff if the property owners adjacent to the area
were informed of this action. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they are
notified and went on to explained the process by which the Public Works
Department is required to follow for a street vacation.
PC4-23 11
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1996
3. Chairman Abels asked if the notification mailed out went to everyone within
five hundred feet. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the notification was
only for the properties immediately adjacent to the street vacations.
4. Commissioner Anderson commended staff on the quality of work.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Gardner to adopt Minute Motion 96-016, approving
the findings for Street Vacations 96-030 and 96-031 for the vacation of fight-
of-way as being in compliance with the adopted Circulation Element of the
La Quinta General Plan. Unanimously approved.
C. Senior Center Parking Lot Expansion - Capital Improvement Program Project No.
96-03; a reqUest of the City for approval of a concept plan to allow the expansion of
the Senior Center parking lot.
1. Senior Engineer John Freeland presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Tyler stated he thought the exit at Avenida Buena Ventura
· would be awkward and the mining radius would need to be enlarged. Senior
Engineer John Freeland explained the exit site was determined during the
planning and building of the site and at that time it became apparent that there
would not be enough space to locate the exit at the end of the parking lot.
Their only option would be to increase the turning radius. Commissioner
TYler asked why the curb stops were only provided under the covered area of
the parking lot. Senior Engineer John Freeland stated they were not needed
in any other area of the parking lot and to place them everywhere would add
to the cost. Discussion followed regarding the economics of the project.
3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 96-017,
recommending to the City Council approval of the concept plan for the
expansion of the Senior Center parking lot. Unanimously approved.
D. Various City-wide Landscaping Improvements - Project No. 96-04; a request of the
City for approval of a conceptual design of various City-wide landscaping medians.
1. Senior Engineer John Freeland presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
PC4-23 12
Planning Commission Meeting
April 23, 1996
2. Chairman Abels asked when staff anticipated the project being completed.
Senior Engineer John Freeland stated that due to the heat, staff will put off
advertising until after summer.
3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Gardner to adopt Minute Motion 96-018,
recommending to the City Council approval of the concept plan for various
City-wide Landscape Improvements-Project No. 96-04. Unanimously
approved.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of April 9, 1996.
1. There being no further corrections to the Minutes of April 9, 1996, it was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Butler to approve the
Minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved.
VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Commissioner Newkirk reported on the City Council meeting of March 19, 1996.
B. Chairman Abels asked Commissioner Anderson to report on the Human Resources
meeting.
C. Department update - Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the
owners of the metropolitan theaters had informed him that they were negotiating the
construction loan.
D. Chairman Abels asked if Commissioner Tyler would be willing to officially be the
Planning Commission's representative at all the City Council meetings. Staff stated
the selection of the Planning Commission representative was at the Planning
Commission's discretion. Chairman Abels asked that this item be discussed at a later
date.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Anderson
to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on May 14, 1996. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:36 P.M. Unanimously approved.
PC4-23 13