PCMIN 07 23 1996 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78495 Calle Tarnpico, La Quinta, CA
July 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 Woodard to lead the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Anderson, Butler,
Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels.
B. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Hemmn, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio,
Principal Planner Start Sawa,.and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. PRESENTATION:
A. Chairman Abels presented Katie Barrows with a Resolution commending her for six
years of service as a Planning Commissioner. Following the presentation, it was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Butler to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 96-027. Unanimously approved.
B. Chairman Abels opened the nominations for Chairman. Commissioners
Anderson/Tyler nominated Jacques Abels. There being no further nominations, the
nominations were closed. Commissioner Gardner stated that when the elections were
held last, the discussion was to rotate the Chairmanship to each of the
Commissioners for the experience and he felt this should be followed. There being
no further discussion, Commissioner Abels was elected Chairman with
Conu~,issioner Gardner voting no.
C. Chairman Abels opened the nominations for Vice Chair. Commissioners
Newkirk/Butler nominated Wayne Gardner. Commissioner Gardner declined the
nomination for the reasons stated above. It was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Gardner/Newkirk to nominate Richard Butler. There being no
further nominations, the nominations were closed. Commissioner Butler was elected
Vice Chairman unanimously.
PC7-23 1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996 .
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ,Sl~ific Plan 96-097. Conditional Use Permit 96-09.8 and Enviromnental Assessment
96-3~.5; a request of Home Depot for certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact, approval of a Specific Plan to allow
construction of a 2! 8,300 square foot retail center on approximately 20 acres, and
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to alloTM outdoor storage in conjunction with
the Home Depot Store.
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. Staff noted the changes in the Conditions of Approval and that
a letter had been received in objection to the pwject by Malcolm and Annette
- 'Lee. Staff further noted that Condition #57 presently requires the landscaping
to be approved by staff. Staff is recommending this be changed to have the
landscaping come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
2. Commissioner Gardner questioned how many parking spaces would be
required. Staff clarified there were 994 parking spaces for the entire project.
3. Commissioner Gardner asked if the Spanish tile could be used instead of the
flat tile. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated staff considered the "S"
tile roof, but as the building was a contemporary tilt up structure, staff
recommended the roof tile be flat which is a Terra Cotta "S" tile.
4. Commissioner Gardner asked if the sign sizes included the lumber and
nursery signs. Staff stated the 522 square feet included the main Home Depot
sign only. Commissioner Gardner asked if the monument signs were
comparable to what was approved for the Wal-Mart and Von's Shopping.
Centers. Staff stated they were comparable to the One Eleven La Quinta
Shopping Center.
5. Commissioner Gardner asked about the additional landscaping. Staff stated
the applicant would be required to meet the 50% parking lot shading
·, requirement.
·
6. Commissioner Woodard asked if a perspective rendering was required. Staff
stated it was not always specifically required of a project and this project had
not been asked to submit one.
PC7-23 2 '
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
7. Commissioner Tyler asked about the sample board of roof tiles. He felt a red
flat tile would fit in better with the City's Spanish design theme. Staff
pointed out that the tile did come in different colors.
8. Commissioner Anderson stated his questions Were pertaining to traffic and
circulation flow. In particular, the number of entries leading into the project
located so close to the Jefferson Street and Highway 111 intersection and
their proximity to each other, what was staff's reasoning for this? Senior
Engineer Steve Speer clarified that on Highway 111 the City is required to
meet the minimum distance between access drives as allowed by the General
Plan, which is 250 feet from an intersection. This being a large site, the
spacing of the driveways was designed in accordance with those
· specifications. The Jefferson Street entries are close, but within the req~
distance. Staff Clarified that the median on Jefferson Street is a shared
. median with the City of Indio. Since its installation, the median has created
some criticism by the adjacent residents. The project is conditioned to have
a long throat extending the median for the middle entrance coming into Home
Depot off Jefferson Street. Senior Engineer Steve Speer went On to explain
the egress and ingress circulation of the entrances off Jefferson StreeL He
further noted there would.be three northbound lanes of traffic on Jefferson
Street and the northerly access, Vista Grande, would be signalized when'
warranted.
9. Commissioner Anderson asked ffreaining the median break was to allow the
southbound traffic to turn into existing businesses on Jefferson Street. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer went on to explain the purpose for maintaining the
median break.
10. Commissioner Butler asked about the signal at Vista Grande. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer explained that when Phase I was constructed, it would
probably not meet the uattic warrants to require a signal at Vista Grande.
The current traffic load will increase as the Center develops thus increasing
the potential that warrants will be met. Commissioner Butler asked if this
was a shared expense with the City oflndio. Staff stated it was not, it would
be the complete responsibility of Home Depot. Commissioners discussed the
traffic circulation with staff.
11. -Commissioner Anderson asked about deliveries and track traffic in regards
to the loading docks. Was the track traffic designed to be circulated to the
--
north side of the building with most of the traffic being directed south on
Jefferson Street? Was staff concerned about the truck traffic on Jefferson
Street? Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated Jefferson Street is a Regional
PC7-23 3
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
Arterial street by both La Quinta, Indio, and the Coachella Valley Association
of Governments, therefore it can handle the load. He went on to explain the
traffic pattern for the truck deliveries.
12. Commissioner Woodard asked what the function was for the parking lot on
the east side in the rear of the building in Phase II. Principal Planner Start
Sawa stated it would primarily be employee parking.
·
13. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman AbelS opened the public
hearing. Mr. Mark Shenouda, representing the applicant Home Depot,
addressed his concerns to the Commission regarding the following .
Conditions of Approval:
..
a. "Revised" Conditions #2 - He requested increasing the parking lot
.. light standards to 35-feet and allow the Garden Center lights as
proposed.
b. "Revised" Condition #20 - He requested shifting all of the
handicapped spaces one aisle to the east and closer to the entrant.
This should alleviate staff's concern regarding maneuvering in these
spaces if in the main drive aisle.
c. "Revised" Condition #22 - He requested one side split face block on
the Channel side only, instead of both sides. The south side of the
wall would be landscaped with box size trees and face the interior.
d. "Original" Condition #23 - He explained that the cart corrals would
be limited to two locations. They will have an employee on site who
will be continually picking up the carts and returning them to the
store.
e. "Original" Condition #26 - He stated there is no need for a six foot
wall around the trash compactor area as the compactor is about eight
feet high and recessed in the loading dock four feet below grade. A
three foot high tilt up wall screens one side. They request this
condition be deleted.
-.f. "Revised" Condition #42 - He requested the option of constructing
the Channel lining in phases.
PC7-23 4
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
g. "Revised" Condition #61 - He requested the landscaping condition be
deleted as they would move the handicapped spaces and didn't have
the space to accommodate the planters.
h. "Original"Condition #63 - He stated that the trees required in fi.om of
the store are an operational nightmare and it is the store's policy to
not allow anything in the front of the store. They would recommend
having a couple of tree wells installed between the lumber yard and
the main canopy adjacent to the tilt up wall.
i. "Original"Condition #88.C.- He requested the deletion of this
condition for pop outs as the vertical elements that are being required.
would bring more attention to' the downspout.
· j. "Original" Condition 88.A., B., C. - He requested deletion of these
sign revision requirements.
k. · Condition #90 - He requested deletion of this condition as it would
cause them to lose too much parking. '..
14. Mr. Drew Purvis, Assistant Planner for the City of Indio, stated he had
submitted a letter to the City regarding the City of Indio's concerns with
respect to the Home Depot project. Indio was pleased to hear that staff had
addressed some of their concerns in the staff report. In addition, they were
pleased to see this type of business moving to the east end of the Valley and
employing so many residents. However, the City of Indio is concerned that
the impacts are regional in character and generally environmental in nature.
He would like to recommend that the Planning Commission continue this
item to allow staff time to address their concerns and mitigate the negative
impact of this proposal.
15. Mr. Richard J. Smith, Smith Peroni, Planning Consultants in Palm Springs,
stated he was presem to address the concerns of his client, the property owner
immediately to the west of the project site.' He then stated they were in
support of the project and their only concern was the traffic. He stated the
general engineering role is to install traffic signals every quarter mile. He
· · then passed around an exhibit showing the proposed signal locations if this
· .were followed on Highway 111~ Due to this "role", he was surprised that the
City was not requiring all the signals to be installed. As shown on the Home
Depot plans, the traffic signal on Highway 111 was to be installed entirely
on the Home Depot property. This would prohibit his client from using the
PC7-23 5
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
driveway and not allowing their property a left turn access onto Highway 111.
They would like to recommend having a common driveway. If Home Depot
was agreeable, his client would be willing to grant an easement to allow a
reciprocal driveway that would accommodate both sites. Regardless, the need
to have the signal installed remains. Currently his client's frontage on
Highway 111 is 500 feet· and with there being another piece of property
between his client's property and Dune Palms Road, there would be no means
of having a left turn onto Highway 111. A shared signal at this location
would allow both property owners a left turn access.
16. Ms. Dorothy Taul, 80-140 Vista Grande, stated her concern was that the
signal for Vista Grande was being postponed. She were on to clarify that
with the installation of a larger facility for the veterinarian proposed by the
· City of Indio for the east side of Jefferson Street, the existing commercial
facilities on the east side of Jefferson Street, and now this development, there
'would be major changes to the traffic conditions for the residents on Vista
Grande. If the Highway 111 signal is green, traffic travels north on Jefferson
Street at speeds of 45-50 miles per hour making a left turn on to, or off of,
Jefferson Street very difficult. _
17. Mr. John Seevers, 80125 Vista Grande stated he too was concerned aborn
traffic. In the traffic analysis report, the traffic signal is shown to be
warranted at Vista Grande at the time of the project's opening. With the
discussion thus far at this meeting, he would like clarification as to whether
or not the signal was warranted and if it would be installed. In addition, the
16 residents on Vista Grande are concerned about the view from Vista
Grande when traveling west, into the loading dock area behind Home Depot.
They would like to have the view shielded. He suggested moving the traffic
island to hide the view. They also had a concern aborn the sign on the east
side of the building, as it appears the letters on the sign will be five feet high.
They would request the Commission reduce the size of the sign. They would
like to request that the light standards be 25-feet instead of 35-feet as this
would be too excessive. The nursery lights should also be kept as low as
possible. Lastly, the City should not compromise on any landscaping
requirements.
18. "There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public -hearing.
19. Chairman Abels asked stuff to address the traffic light concerns that had been
raised. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the traffic study indicates that the
Jefferson Street traffic light is needed based on the build out of Phase I and
·
II. However, Phase II will not be opening at the same time as Phase I,
therefore, only half the traffic will be present at the time of the store opening
and the signal would not be warranted to mitigate the impact at that time.
PC7-23 6
-- Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
20. Commissioner Woodard asked for clarification. Senior Engineer Steve Speer
stated that the concerns fi.om the residents are not caused by the construction
of this project. Only those issues that are created by the construction of this
project can be required to be mitigated. Discussion followed regarding the
traffic concerns. Staff stated that warrant study policies are put together by
Caltrans and have been utilized by the City.
21. Commissioner Tyler stated that the traffic study did not address the Heritage
Palms project further north on Jefferson Street in the City of Indio, or the
other projects planned for this area. He was COncerned that the uaffic study .........
should be restudied to include potential projects as it is inviting a potential.
disaster.
22. Commissioner Anderson stated he understood the StUdy was based on both
'Phases being built out, but the majority of the traffic on Jefferson Street will
come from Home Depot and not the other retail businesses proposed to be
constructed along with Home Depot. He too was concerned about the traffic
-- congestion at the Vista Grande intersection. .
23. Commissioner Woodard asked why the Valley population that would increase
during the "season" was not considered in the traffic study. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer stated the traffic study was done in May, and seasonal traffic
only increases the amount of traffic by 25%.
24. Chairman Abels also questioned the traffic increase during the seasonal
months. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained the figures contained in the
traffic report and referred to the study results. He stated that if the traffic
increased by 25%, it would still fall below the number needed for a warrant.
He went on to explain the warrant process to determine the need for a signal.
He further stated that signals are not the only solution for traffic problems.
They can also be the cause of a traffic problem.
25. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked if the impact of the
USA Homes project in Indio, along with the other projects proposed for the
north section of Jefferson Street, would increase the warrants to require a
', signal; if so, what period of time is anticipated for the traffic signal
· installation? Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this warrant was a function
of the cross-traffic flow (i.e., project exit) not arterial street volume. Once
--
the project volume increases to the levels required'by the warrant, a signal is
installed.
26. Commissioner Tyler asked if staff had investigated the common driveway
proposed between the two property owners. Staff stated they had not.
PC7-23 7
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
27. Mr. Mark Shenouda spoke regarding the shared access with the property
owner to the west and stated they would look into the issue. Regarding the
issue of signals, the plans are to install the signal on Highway 111 as part of
the Phase I construction.
28. Chairman Abels asked if the nursery lights would be shielded. Mr. Shenouda
stated they would be shielded. Chairman Abels asked if the loading dock
area could be shielded from the Vista Grande residents traveling west. Mr:
Shenouda stated the people traveling west on Vista Grande would not be able
to see the loading dock as the building is to be constructed at an angle to
block the view. It would be set back 300 feet and depressed so as not to be
~n.
29. Commissioner Tyler asked when the trucks made their deliveries. Mr.
'$henouda stated they are usually made during the day, but could be scheduled
for night time.
30. Commissioner Gardner asked if the circulation pattern for the delivery trucks
was to have them travel down Highway 111 entering and exiting the parking
lot off of Highway 111, and driving to the rear of the building for their
deliveries. If this was to be the circulation pattern, why not close off the
Jefferson Street entrance and landscape it to hide the rear of the building?
Mr. Shenouda stated'the Jefferson Street entrance would have a lot of use by
all kinds and sizes of trucks.
31. Commissioner Butler asked if any tracks would be entering off of Jefferson
Street. Mr. Shenouda stated the large semi-tracks are to enter off of Highway
111, but the smaller tracks would use both.
32. Commissioner Butler stated his concern about the applicant's request to
increase the height of the light standards to 35 feet. He could not accept the
increase in height from 25 feet to 35 feet. Mr. Shenouda stated that by using
the 35 foot high light standards, it would allow them to decrease the number
of poles needed. The nursery area would be a problem without the higher
poles. If the lights are shielded it should take care of the problem.
33. -Commissioner Anderson stated that rather than negotiating these issues, he
would like to address a primary area of concern, that is the percentage of
. landscaping in the parking area. The City standard is 5%, and the potential
exists to take the building pad on the comer and change it into parking. Five
percent must be maintained whether this comer pad is used or not. He .was
also concerned about the physical appearance and noise from the loading
dock at the rear of the building due to loading and unloading of tracks. A six
foot wall is good, but eight feet would be better. Staff' s recommendations
PC7-23
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
regarding the landscaping are good, and he has no objection to the single
sided split face block for the rear wall. The monument signs requested must
be reduced in size. Final landscape plans including the monument signs,
should be reviewed by the Commission. He sees no reason why a blended
"S" tile could not be used on the mansards. The five foot ADA pedestrian
aisle for the handicapped spaces should be shaded.
34. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern with the look of the entire length
of Highway 111 beginning to be a mass of .straight. walls with no sense of
character or Scale. Even though he understands the economics, he has a
concern for the image of La Quinta with these mammoth structures on.
· . Highway 111 and no relief. There is a need to focus on the entire streetscape
and not just the Home Depot site. Home Depot is requesting a reduction of
parking spaces as well as a reduction in the amount of the landscaping. He
understands the economics of Home Depot to require a certain amount of
parking, and the City can live with this, but it is Home Depot's property and
what he sees is Home Depot maximizing the entire site at the expense of the
proper parking requirements. He is opposed to the complete deterioration of
_ the landscaping of the overall project when the City has given the benefit of
- reducing the overall parking requirement. The five percent requirement is an
absolute minimum. Home Depot has maximized the entire site at the
expense of landscaping. The second issue is the front wall of Home Depot
being a straight line. Commissioner Woodard stated he understood the
economics of this, but the second phase is also a straight line and this is a
maximizing of the site. The employee parking behind the building on the
east side of the second phase, could be eliminated as there is an over
abundance of parking. This would allow the building to be moved back and
-give some variation to the front wall. As it is, with no variation in the front
setbacks, the minimum distance between the driveways, and the front of the
buildings La Quinta is left with a solid wall of buildings. Unless Home
Depot is willing to review the second phase in a more sensitive way, he
would be concerned about what his vote would be. He supports staff
regarding the relocation of the handicapped parking to provide a better
situation in terms of the entrance. They could eliminate some of the parking
requirements for Phase II and increase the site of Phase I to accommodate
landscaping on both sides of the entry road into the project. This would give
', some sense of landscaping to minimize the impact of the parking area from
-those driving by. In regard to these two areas of building scale and the
, setback combined with landscaping, he agrees that there should be a walk and
landscaping provided'at the main road into the site even if they have to
expand the site to accommodate this. As it now stands, he would recommend
the trees be mature and the shading position be there when the store opens up.
In addition, the landscaping should be increased throughout the entire project
even if it requires a readjustment of the site plan and the size of the fn'st
parcel. The rear wall should be eight feet rather than six. The applicant
PC7-23 9
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
needs to look at the amount of distance between the front of the lower
element of the elevation to the high element as it is very minimal at best, and
to facade it in a way to make it look Spanish, does two things that are wrong:
1) it looks superficial; and 2) hopefully, he would like to see La Quinta be a
City that does not have to be all tile roofs as he would like to see a variation
in architecture. It is an economic issue, but he would like to see some way
that it can be solved to sof[en this huge building. He would suggest that there
are ways to deal. with the upper level wall in the front that are more
imaginative, so not to ruin the area that is needed for economics, but reduces
the impact of this huge wall along HighwaY 111. The applicant also needs to
look at a variation of materials for the rear wall, on the side that faces the
channel, and' not have' one continuous walt of one material, but use some
imagination with different types of material, at least two, to break up the ·
look. He agreed there are too many monument signs on Highway 11 l, as
well as the size needed to be decreased. Lastly, he is concerned with the
'amount of traffic that will be traveling in this area and the lights standards
should be left at 25-feet.
35. Commissioner Butler stated he agreed with the minimum of 5% landscaping.
He would accept the 30 foot lights if they were shielded and if it would cut
down the number of light standards. He agreed with the relocation of the
handicapped parking, as it would add to the appearance of the front of the
building as the wall mass could be broken up by adding trees on both sides
of the building. He agrees with the eight foot wall 'at the rear as it will
address the concerns of the residents to. the north. He is concerned that the
entire Channel be lined at one time due to its expense. Splitting the cost into
two phases, does not seem'to be economical. He is not concerned with the
landscaping and parking at this time as it will comeback to the Planning
Commission in the future for review. He has no problem with deleting the
trees in front of the building as he feels it will accommodate the business.
However he is concerned about the size of the signs as this has been an issue
with him since he has been on the Commission. Highway 111 is an image
that the Commission has tried to soi~ened. He agrees that if the signs.were
smaller you lose the impact, but there must be some compromise that can be
reached.
36. ', Commissioner Gardner stated his concern about the loading dock and trash
.compactor and its visibility to the Vista Grande residents. The residents need
to have some screening from the trash compactor. He is very finn about the
light standards being 25-feet and that Home Depot do something about the
front of the building architecturally, or provide the trees.
37. Commissioner Newkirk stated his concern about the cart storage and the lack
PC7-23 10
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
of customers putting them in the storage area. There needs to be some
storage area provided. Mr. Shenouda stated he would like to keep them to a
limit of two storage areas as well as having employees continually bringing
the carts back inside. Commissioner Newkirk stated he would agree with a
30-foot high light standard, but would like to have an eight foot wall on the
rear wall with no split face block on the north side.
38. Commissioner Tyler stated he thought Home Depot used three different styles
of cart. The problem was that when a customer is parking he cannot see the
fiat lumber carts and usually ends up nmning over them. They do not need
a cart corral on every row, but the employees are not going to be picking up
carts as often as it will be necessary. It is essential to have the cart eonals as
·
well as a holding area at the enwanee. It is mandatory that both be provided.
He is excited to have them in the community, but they need to. fit into the
community. He is concerned about the increase in traffic, especially for the
'residents on Vista Grande. The view of an eight foot wall for the north side
residents should be considered as well as the need to resolve the signal at
Vista Grande. He is concerned that they keep the nursery lights down below
the height of the wall. There is no sign on the east elevation at the Rancho
'Mirage stOre and he does not see the need for the east side sign on this store.
It would cast too much light to the residents on the east side. Mr. Shenouda
stated that Jefferson Street is an important corridor to them, but they do
understand that the five foot sign on the east side might be intrusive and they
would be willing to reduce it to four foot high letters if necessary.
39. Chairman Abels stated he concurred with the comments already made. He
agreed with Commissioner Woodard that the south elevation could be
softened. The Conditions of Approval require the landscaping to come back
to the Planning Commission; maybe the signs should as well. Mr. Shenouda
commented that they could achieve the 5% landscaping requirement. As the
signs will be brought back to the Planning Commission it will allow them
time to review their Rancho Mirage store signs. Regarding the Phase II
layout, it is a preliminary drawing and as they do not have tenants the
configurations could change. Commissioner Woodard stated his concem was
that if the Commission were to approve the site plan as it is being submitted,
then whenever Home Depot comes back to build the second phase, the record
', will show that the site plan was approved and he does not approve of this
.configuration as it is being submitted.
40. Commissioner Woodard asked if Phase I could be approved requiring Phase
II to be resubmitted for approval. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated a condition could be added requiring Phase II to come back for
final approval.
PC7-23 11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
41. Commissioner Anderson stated that due to the comments that had been made
he would like to see the project continued to give the applicant an opportunity
to restudy their design. There had been enough concerns expressed that he
would like to see the applicant come back with a design that is more in line
with what the community would like to have.
42. Commissioner Woodard stated that in order to increase something, it means
decreasing something. He stated the applicant is sacrificing landscaping to
gain optimum coverage for his project. Discussion followed regarding the
landscaping and site plans.
·
. _
43. Commissioner Cmrdner stated that due to the concerns that had been'raised,
he would move to continue this item to August 13, 1996, to give the applicant
. time to revise the plans. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion and
'it was unanimously approved.
44. Mr. Shenouda reviewed the issues they would be addressing that were of
concern to the Commission: an eight foot wall, additional landscaping, the _
option to line the channel in phases, cart storage, architectural treatment to
the building, signs, lighting, and traffic study.
46. Commissioner Anderson stated he would like Home Depot to not just address
the issues that had been raised, but stand back and look at the entire site.
Create an entry scenario and statement with their building for themselves as
well as the City of La Quinta. Mr. Shenouda stated they would look at the
site plan again. Discussion followed as to the concerns of the Commission
regarding the overall look of the project.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS' None
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of July 9, 1996.
Commissioners Tyler asked that the Minutes be corrected on Page 3, Item 14 to read:
"Commissioner Tyler questioned the right-in/fight-om requirement for the driveways
of the'proposed project (Condition 25). Between Darby Road and Fred Wadng Drive
Washington Street currently has a left mm center lane, which allows left tums on to
or off of, Washington Street for both northbound and southbound traffic. The
proposed right-in/right-out restriction cannot be enforced until some future time
when the center lane of Washington Street has been converted to either a raised
median or a painted divider barrier." There being no further corrections, it was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Butler to approve the minutes as
corrected. Unanimously approved.
PC7-23 12
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Chairman Abels asked staff to prepare an alternate attendance form for the
Commissioners to attend furore City Council meetings. Commissioner Tyler
reported on the City Council meeting of July 22, 1996.
B. Department update - None
There being no further business, it was moved by Chairman Abels to adjourn this meeting of the
Planning Commission to a regular meeting on August 13, 1996. This regular meeting of the
Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:33 P.M. Unanimously approved. ' .........
PC7-23 13