PCMIN 08 13 1996 MINUT2S
PLANNING COMM!!;SION MEETING
A regular meeting held ..~t the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico. La Quinta, CA
August 13, 1996 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by
Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Gardner to lead the flag salute.
B. Roll Call: Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners
Anderson, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Don
Owens, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Associate Engineer Fred Bouma,
Associate Planners Leslie Mouriquand and Greg Trousdell, and Executive Secretary
~ Betty Sawyer.
II. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA- Confirmed
III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of July 23, 1996.
There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Tyler/Butler to approve the minutes. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Specific Plan 96-027, Conditional Use Permit 96-028 and Environmental Assessment
96-325; 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 218,300 square foot retail center on approximately 20 acres, and
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage in conjunction with
the Home Depot Store.
PC8-13 1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 13, 1996
1. Planning Manager Clm: tine di Iorio presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy, '~' which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff inforn d the Commission of the corrections to the report;
Page 5, second paragrapl~, hould read, "The environmental review process
indicated that the circulatio; layout should be discussed and resolved as part
of the design review process to minimize on-site traffic conflicts and help in
reducing air quality impacts, in accordance with the Air Ouality Element of
the General Plan. Home Depot... ". The Environmental Impact Report on
Page 12, Section 3.10 Noise. It is underlined as requiring an acoustical study
and this needs to be modified as the applicant is supplying an eight foot block
wall. In addition, staff informed the Commission of the addition of
Condition #81.C regarding the Jefferson Street monument sign requiring the
sign to be eight feet in height and six feet in width. Condition #82 also added
to require the 24" box trees shall be two and a half inches to three inches in
diameter measured six inches above grade and the 36-inch box trees shall be
four inches in diameter measured six inches above grade.
2. Commissioner Woodard asked what how the site plan had been modified to
increase the number of parking spaces. Staff stated the applicant would
answer this question and gave a general explanation of where the additional
parking would be located.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels informed everyone
that the public hearing portion of the meeting had been closed at the August
meeting and this was the time for Commission discussion only.
4. Commissioner Woodard asked the applicant to explain where the eleven
extra parking spaces were located on the site plan. Mr. Doug Couper,
representing Home Depot, explained that by eliminating the handicap parking
and reconfiguring the landscaping allowed them to gain the additional
parking spaces.
5. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant had responded to any of the
changes for Phase II that were addressed at the prior meeting by the Planning
Commission. Staff stated the plans did not indicate any changes. It was
addressed in the text of the specific plan only. Staff was recommending that
a condition be added requiting the second phase be returned to the
Commission for their review prior to construction. Discusfion followed
regarding the specific plan text.
PC8-13 2
Planning Commission Meeting
August 13, 1996
6. Commissioner Woodard asked staff if the illuminated sign on the Jefferson
Street elevation was to be replaced with a painted sign. If so, why not have
a nonilluminated sign instead of painting a sign on the wall. Staff stated the
applicant suggested a painted wall sign to eliminate the glare to the
neighbors. Staff stated there was no objection to this type of nonilluminated
sign.
7. Commissioner Tyler stated that although he supported the project, he thought
it should be studied further. In order to be fair in regards to what the
Commission was asking of the applicant, he had visited several of their store
sites in Southern California. He still had a concern regarding the height of
the light standards and thought they should be restricted to 25-feet. The
lights for the nursery still extend above the wall, but should not blind the
neighbors. In addition, he still had concerns regarding the handicapped
accessible walkway from the Highway 111 fight of way. to the store entry; the
number of cart corrals was still inadequate and misplaced as they were not
wide enough to accommodate all the different types and sizes of carts; the
traffic signal at' Vista Grande and Jefferson Street needs to be installed at the
time the store opens, before any accidents occur. If the signal is not
installed, at a minimum the preparation for the installation of the signal
should be made at the time of construction for Phase I. The northeast comer
landscaping must not be to high so as not to not block traffic view and the
signs need to be finalized, such as "Indoor Lumber Yard" should be
shortened to "Lumber". Need to clean up the sign clutter.
8. Commissioner Anderson stated he was concerned about providing shading
for the ADA required walkway from Highway 111 to the store entrance. The
applicant was providing a walkway that will be heavily used and it would be
nice to have shade in this location. The trees would not need to be the tall
trees as shown on the plans, but canopy trees. He too, was in favor of the 25-
foot high lights and the architectural treatment on the rear of the building so
as not to create a fiat facade for the neighbors to the north. He agreed that
this plan was an improvement over the last plan and he was glad Phase II
would be reviewed by the Planning Commission in the furore.
9. Commissioner Woodard asked how the cart storage locations were
determined; one is located down at Highway 111. Staff stated they had raised
the same concern and the applicant stated they would re-evaiuate the
locations. Staff had conditioned the issue to come back to the Community
Development Director for approval.
PC8-13 3
Planning Commission Meeting
August 13, 1996
10. Commissioner Gardner stated his concern about the size of the trees to be
planted on the north wa A four inch diameter tree every 50 feet would not
be ample to buffer the n~: 'th elevation. They need to be able to reach 25-feet
in height within a reason., qe length of time. The signs and lights were still
a concern and the lights ~:eed to be 25-foot standards. Traffic control on
Jefferson Street needs to be studied further; the study does not warrant the
signal, but asked if there was any way to do another study when the project
is under construction to determine the morning and afternoon traffic. He
would hope a study conducted at that time would allow a light to be installed
upon opening of the center and not just the preparation work for the
installation of the signal.
11. Commissioner Newkirk praised the applicant for the changes that had been
made. He thought the signs were better and agreed that the "Indoor Lumber"
yard sign could be reduced. It did not appear that the traffic signal would be
installed at this time, but he agreed with the undergrounding be installed at
the time of construction. In reference to the lights he thought they should be
25-feet in height.
12. Commissioner Butler stated he agreed with what had been stated so far by
other Commissioners. He agreed that the trees on the north side of the
property would need to be larger to block the lights for the neighbors.
Concerning the sign on the Jefferson Street elevation, he thought the painted
sign enhanced the neighborhood by not having an illuminated light. He
agreed that "Indoor Lumber" yard sign was unnecessary. The lights should
be 25-feet in height and adequate for the coverage of the parking lot. He
thought the applicants concern for the nursery area lights still needed to be
addressed. He would prefer the 25-foot high lights for security and safety
purposes. As far as providing shading at the handicapped access walkway to
the facility, he thought this would become an economic burden on the
applicant that had not been placed on any other developer.
13. Chairman Abels stated he thought the applicant had addressed the concerns
of the Commission. As far as requiting another traffic study, he did not see
how any additional studies would change the results and the City does not
want to place any additional burden on the applicants. He agreed with
changing the "Indoor Lumber" yard sign and the undergrounding work
necessary for the installation of a signal. As far as the lights t'or the Nursery
area he agreed with the applicants request.
PC8-13 4
Planning Commission Meeting
August 13, 1996
14. Commissioner Anderson clarified that the shade he indicated to, was for
shade trees.
15. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to.address the concerns that
had been stated by the Commission.
16. Mr. Doug Couper, stated he had nothing to say about the traffic signal as this
was up to the City; he had no problem with the 25-foot high parking lot
lights; and they would shield the Nursery Center lights at 25-feet.
17. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant understood about providing
the undergrounding conduit for the signal to the median at the time of
construction. Mr. Couper stated they had no problem with this.
18. Mr. Couper stated that in regard to the handicapped parking, they would be
required to comply with the ADA standards.
19. Commissioners discussed with the applicant the wall packs for the north
elevation lights, being lowered to create less light illumination. Mr. Couper
stated they would be shielded and not reflect off the building.
20. Commissioner Tyler asked how many lights would be left on at all times.
Mr. Couper stated only those required for security by Sheriff's Department
and the City ordinances. Discussion followed regarding what is normally
required.
21. Mr. Couper stated that regarding the cart corrals, they would work with staff
to reach a solution. The "Indoor Lumber" yard sign would have to be
addressed at the corporate level. Commissioner Woodard asked staff how
this would be addressed when there is no solution at this time. Chairman
Abels stated it would be added to the conditions. Mr. Couper further stated
the trees would be planted 25-foot on-center at the rear of the building.
22. Commissioner Tyler asked if the specific plan would be updatedl Staff stated
it was required as part of the Conditions of Approval.
23. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Newkirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
96-028, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact to the City Council.
PC8-13 5
Planning Commission Meeting
August 13, 1996
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler,.
Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 96-029, recommending approval of Specific Plan 96-
027 to the City Council, subject to conditions as revised:
a. Modifications to the Conditions of Approval:
1) #2-Change 30 feet to 25 feet.
2) #3-Change "prior to issuance of building permits" to "prior to
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy".
3) #21-Add..."screen walls, landscaping and proper signs".
4) #3 8-Change. .."prior to issuance of a building permit" to
"prior to construction of any building".
5) #48-B.1.-Delete "Install signal prior to opening any retail
outlet in the Specific Plan that generates sufficient traffic to
warrant installation".
6) #48-C.-Replace 7/12/96 with 8/5/96.
7) #48-C.3.-Delete.
8) #85-The Phase II site plan is a conceptual design only. The
final site plan shall require review and approval under a Site
Development Permit by the Planning Commission per Section
9.210.010 of the Zoning Code.
b. Additions to the Conditions of Approval:
1) The trees to be planted on the northern property line shall be
planted 25-foot on center.
2)The north elevation wall pack lights shall be lowered.
3) Traffic signal conduit for the Jefferson Street and Vista
Grande intersection shall be installed before Certificate of
Occupancy is issued.
4) The wording "Indoor Yard" would be eliminated from the
"Lumber" sign.
5) The northeast comer landscaping shall not exceed 30-inches
in height within the line of sight
6) The Garden Center lights will be 25-feet in height and shielded.
7) The Jefferson Street monument sign shall be 8-feet high and
six feet in length.
8) All 36-inch box trees shall be a minimum of 4-inches in
diameter as measured 12-inches from grade.
9) All 24-inch box trees shall be a minimum of two and a half
inches to three inches in diameter as measures six inches from
grade.
PC8-13 6
Planning Commission Meeting
August 13, 1996
25. Commissioner Anderson asked if the Commission wanted to require the
shading over the pedestrian walkway. Commissioner Butler stated it would
be an economic burden to the applicant and he did not feel it was necessary.
Commissioner Woodard stated he did not feel additional shading was
warranted due to the amount of changes Home Depot had already agreed to
accommodate the Commission.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Newkirk to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 96-030, recommending approval of
Conditional Use Permit 96-028 to the City Council, subject to conditions as
amended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
B. Public Use Permit 96-018; a request of St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church for
approval to allow construction of building additions totaling 6,114 square feet of new
office, Parish Hall, and small chapel to an existing church campus, and an application
for greater building height.
1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff informed the Commission that the requested modifications
would eliminate eleven parking spaces. A condition had been added
requiring the applicant to move the structure back five feet into the courtyard
area to provide a drive aisle of 25-feet in width.
2. Commissioner Tyler asked if this was a part of the master plan. Staff stated
there had been some discussion between the applicant and staff regarding this
subject and it was determined that the modifications did fit their master
design. Commissioner Tyler asked if they still met the parking requirements.
Staff stated the requirement was based on the number of seats in the main
sanctuary and the count provided did meet this requirement. Commissioner
Tyler asked if the handicapped spaces would be relocated. Staff stated four
would be lost but there are six in the rear with a large loading zone and
according to City ordinance only five are required. Discussion followed as
to the location of the handicapped parking spaces. It was determined that the
four spaces being eliminated should be replaced in the same proximity.
PC8-13 7
Planning Commission Meeting
August 13, 1996
3. Commissioner Anderson clarified that the building height being requested
was 36-feet. Discussion followed regarding the height of the existing
structures.
4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public
hearing. Mr. Robert Ricciardi, architect for the applicant, spoke regarding the
proposal and gave a history of the church construction. Regarding the
conditions of approval, they concur with all the conditions. In reference to
the handicapped parking, Mr. Ricciardi stated the existing handicapped
parking in the rear of the church was currently working the best as they were
able to take the parishioners directly into the sanctuary through.a rear door.
5. Commissioner Woodard stated the plans before him did not show any
difference in the size of the handicapped stalls. Mr. Riccardi explained the
spaces were sized for handicapped parking but it was not indicated on the site
plan. Discussion followed regarding the handicapped parking.
6. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public
hearing.
7. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern about the structure being so close
to the street that the addition would be in conflict and detract from the main
structure and for that reason the height should be reduced.
8. Commissioner Anderson stated he too had a concern about the height of the
structure and its proximity to the street. He agreed that due to its proximity
it would diminish the grandeur of the main sanctuary. The addition is
architecturally compatible except for the overall height.
9. Commissioner Newkirk stated that the existing structure is something of
beauty and a history of La Quinta and with the addition it reminds him of a
Mission. He did not think the height detracted from the overall picture.
10. Commissioner Gardner stated he agreed with Commissioner Newkirk.
11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Gardner/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
96-031 approving Public Use Permit 96-018, subject to conditions.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
PC8-13 8
Planning Commission Meeting
August 13, 1996
~ C. Conditional Use Permit 96-09.7; a request of Boston West, L.L.C. for certification of
Mitig~ited Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approval to allow
construction of a 3,250 square foot restaurant with a drive-through lane.
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. Commissioner Butler asked about the location of the proposed landscape
screen wall. Staff pointed out the location along the south elevation.
Commissioner Butler asked if the pillars would be hidden. Staff stated they
would not.
3. Commissioner Anderson asked if the berming would provide enough
screening that the wall would not be needed. Staff stated this was what was
anticipated.
4. Commissioner Tyler stated that a three foot wall was not tall enough to screen
.-- the height of a vehicle. He thought it should be taller to be effective.
Commissioner Woodard agreed that three feet was not enough height to
shield the view of the vehicle from the street.
5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public
hearing. Mr. John Baker, Area Developer for Boston Markets addressed the
Commission. Concerning the height of the screen wall, they had mirrored the
activity of the other restaurants presently in the area. The typical intent of
screening the drive-through is to screen the headlights from on-coming
traffic. This typically, is accomplished with a three foot wall or berm. He
questioned whether they understood the City's intent for requiring the wall.
The purpose of the drive-through is for families to take the food home to
replace a home cooked meal rather than eating fast food. They offer a
prepared home-cooked meal concept. They have been well received in the
desert and are anxious to get started. He further stated the only objection to
staff's recommendations was the awnings. They could remove the lettering
on the awnings, but the nature of the color scheme on the awnings was
important. They do not have the recognition as some other restaurants have
as their concept is new. In trying to build brand awareness and identity, the
one element they want to maintain is the awning colors.
6. Commissioner Woodard asked about the material of the awning. Mr. Baker
explained the material and discussed the internal illumination of the awning.
He stated they could illuminate the awning with down-lighting to light the
sidewalk and entryway in place of internal illumination.
PC8-13 9
Planning Commission Meeting
August 13, 1996
7. Mr. Baker went on to explain the layout of the site plan and stated they would
like to start construction as soon as possible. They anticipate opening by the
time the season begins.
8. Commissioner Woodard thanked Mr. Baker for his presentation and stated
he enjoyed their product. He understood the identification issue, but he had
a concerned that each new identity coming into the Center would add a
hodge-podge for the Center and not be compatible for the overall picture.
Staff's recommendation's would be a possible solution. Mr. Baker stated
they could review the recommendation.
9. Commissioner Butler asked if the trash containers could be moved to the
property line. Staff stated future plans for this area called for development
and it would also be an inconvenient location. Discussion followed regarding
the location of the trash container.
10. Commissioner Butler asked if the awning coloring surrounding the building
could be minimized and the portion facing the Center eliminated.
Commissioner Anderson stated he thought keeping the proposed striping and
colors of the awning on the east elevation, was the most important as it was
the entryway. He also suggested the down lighting on the east elevation
would enhance the visibility of the facade and the landscaping.
11. Commissioner Tyler asked how the interior dimensions of the restaurant
compared to their Palm Desert store. Mr. Baker stated the Palm Desert
Market was a larger building developed for an expanded use. Commissioner
Tyler asked if the two pickup windows posed any problems. Mr. Baker
stated it was no problem. Commissioner Tyler'asked if the applicant was
comfortable with the color scheme of the building. Staff clarified it was only
the band they were requesting the color change on. Commissioner Tyler
stated he too felt the trash location was a nuisance.
12. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public
hearing.
13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Gardner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
96-032 approving certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact for Conditional Use Permit 96-027.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
PC8-13 10
Planning Commission Meeting
August 13, 1996
14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Gardner to adopt
Minute Motion 96-026 approving Conditional Use Permit 96-027, subject to
conditions as modified.
15. Commissioner Anderson stated he agreed with staff's recommendation on
the east elevation to maintain the proposed awning colors and design. He
also agreed with the applicant that the addition of the down lighting would
be an accent to the entry.
16. Commissioner Woodard stated he agreed with Commissioner Anderson, but
if every building had its own color identification, it would make for a
pandoras box for any future developments in the Center. He agreed with
staff's recommendation regarding the elimination of internal illumination of
the awning and thought the down lighting should be added.
17. Staff suggested that Condition #7 be modified to allow down lighting and
staff would approve the solid color of the awning and allow striping of the
-- awning only at the entry. Commissioners agreed with the condition change.
18. Unanimously approved.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Conditional Use Permit 95-017. Amendment #1; a request of La Quinta Car Wash
for approval of an outdoor shade structure on the north side of the existing car wash
within 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. Commissioner Tyler asked if the awning was to be permanent or taken down
during the season. Staff stated it was to be permanent and had a five to seven
year life expectancy.
3. Commissioner Woodard asked about the purpose of the awning. Staff
explained it was to assist in the drying of the vehicles. Due to the heat, the
water was drying on the vehicles before they could be hand dried.
4. Chairman Abels clarified that the car wash operates in such a manner that no
car will be there for no more than 15 minutes.
PC8-13 11
Planning Commission Meeting
--
August 13, 1996
5. Ms. Kay Phelps, Shade Concepts stated her company would be making and
installing the shade structure and she was there to represent the La Quinta Car
Wash and answer any questions.
6. Commissioner Anderson asked if this was designed to be year round or as a
shade structure for the summer only. Ms. Phelps stated the fabric top can be
removed, but the posts are permanent.
7. Commissioner Newkirk asked if the posts were positioned so the cars would
not hit them. Ms. Phelps stated that due to their location, they should not be
in the way. There would be no six foot cantilevered canopy as initially
designed, only the posts and "hip" shade to canopy.
8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Gardner to adopt Minute Motion 96-027, approving
Conditional Use Permit 95-017 (Amendment # !), subject to conditions.
9. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern about the temporary look of the
structure. It did not appear to tie itself to the existing structure and would
have a temporary, quick fix look. Ms. Phelps stated they do not look
temporary due to their construction. She further informed the Commission
that the City of La Quinta already had nine structures installed at the Sports
Complex. Following the discussion, the Motion carded with Commissioner
Anderson voting no.
B. Street Vacation 96-032; a request of Robert and Kelly Jones for determination of La
Quinta General Plan consistency with proposed vacation of a portion of an offer of
public utility and drainage easement dedication at Tract 21176, La Quinta Polo
Estates.
1. Associate Engineer Fred Bouma presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Tyler asked what the process would be if the Commission
passed the street vacation and if the street vacation would take affect before
or after the CC&R's were approved. City Attorney Bob Owens stated the
Planning Commission is only determining that the street vacation is in
compliance with the General Plan. The approval of the street vacation was
a City Council decision.
3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Gardner/Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 96-028 making the
findings that the vacation was in compliance with the adopted Circulation
PC8-13 12
-- Planning Commission Meeting
August 13, 1996
Element of the La Quinta General Plan, and recommending that the City
Council consider for inclusion in the Street Vacation Resolution, those
conditions outlined within Exhibit "A". Unanimously approved.
C. Plot Plan 93-500. Amendment #1; a request of Landau Development for approval of
three prototypes for construction.
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. Commissioner Woodard asked for clarification of the elevations and the
number of floor plans. Staff stated the applicant could clarify this.
Commissioner Woodard asked if there were any plotting requirements.. Staff
stated there were none.
3. Mr. Erve Green, Landau Development Company, stated the floor plans will
be identical to those approved in the past. The changes they are making were
only to the architectural design of the elevations. There are 12 houses built
in the Avanti series constructed by another developer. Landau will be
building 11 of the 38 remaining. There are three floor plans for the Coronado
units which currently have building permits pulled. The remainder of lots are
under an option. He then submitted a letter from the Architectural
Committee for Lake La Quinta which approved the elevations as proposed.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked if the three units under construction were the
Coronado floor plan. Mr. Green stated it was a reverse Coronado plan with
some variation. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about the placement
of air conditioning condensers outside the bedroom windows. Mr. Green
stated they had no objection to change their location.
5. Commissioner Woodard asked for clarification on the number of elevations
that were being proposed. Mr. Green stated the Coronado plan would be
changed to the proposed elevations. Commissioner Woodard asked what the
other six elevations would be and if they would be constructed next to each
other or dispersed through the development. Mr. Green explained where they
would be located.
6. Commissioner Woodard asked if Mr. Green would be plotting the units. Mr.
Green stated they would not place the same elevation next to each other as
this would not be attractive to the development. Commissioner Woodard
stated he too was concerned about the air conditioning condenser being
located next to the bedrooms.
PC8-13 13
Planning Commission Meeting
August 13, 1996
7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Anderson/Gardner to adopt Minute Motion 96-029,
recommending approval of Plot 93-500, Amendment #1, to the City Council,
subject to conditions.
8. Commissioner Butler asked if staff would be approving the elevations. Staff
stated they would approve them. Unanimously approved.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Commissioner Tyler reported on the City Council meeting of August 6, 1996.
B. Department update - None
C. Commissioner Gardner asked about the new Agenda format. Staff explained the
agenda and how its format was determined.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Tyler to
adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on September 24, 1996. This
regular meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:34 P.M. Unanimously approved.
PC8-13 14