PCMIN 11 26 1996 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78495 Calle Tampico, CA
November 26, 1996 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:10 P.M. by
Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Gardner to lead the flag salute.
B. Chairman Abels requested the rol1 call: Present: Commissioners Butler, Gardner,
Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels.
D. Staffpresent: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Plug Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA-
·
A. Chairman Abels asked that the Agenda be rearranged placing Item 4 before Item #3.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of November 12,
1996. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 6 be changed to note that Commissioners
Woodard/Tyler are to serve as alternates. Commissioner Butler asked that Page 3 be
amended to read "fueling station" would'be public, as the food mart obviously would
be public. Commissioner Woodard asked that Page 6, Item 21 be amended to read
"a member of the Design Review Board"; on the Lube and Tune building elevations
there was a weakness with the window openings being too thin and too inappropriate;
and the statemem that said the functions are oversized should read "the upper
functions are oversized which caused a rectangular building, which is not
acceptable." There being no further corrections, it was moved and. seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Butler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously
approved.
PCI 1-26 1
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
B. Department Report: None
C. Commissioner Woodard asked that staff not request applicants to supply working
drawings when submitting an application. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated this item would be added to the next Planning Commission Agenda.
Staff noted that the working drawings were already completed and it was easier to
supply them than to ask the applicant to redraw them.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Municipal Code Amendment 96-05 l, Subdivision Ordinance; a request of the City
for approval of amendments to the La Quinta Municipal Code by revising Title 13
(Subdivision Regulations) relating to various Chapters.
1. Chairman Abels stated that staff had requested the issue be continued.
2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Gardner/Butler to continue the public hearing item to December 10, 1996:
. Unanimously approved.
B. Site Development Permit 96-597; a request of KSL Land Corporation for
compatibility approval of the Ryder, Heritage, and Master collection prototype units
for construction at the Citrus Course Subdivision.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report:
2. Commissioners Woodard/Gardner asked to be excused due to a possible
conflict of interest and removed themselves from the dias.
3. Principal Plannei' Start Sawa presented the information contained in the staff.
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff clarified the square footage of the proposed models.
4. Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL Land Corporation, spoke on behalf of
the applicant explaining the units to be constructed in the Citrus Course
subdivision that are presently being constructed at PGA West.
5. Commissioner Butler asked Mr. Hosea if they had any objections to
providing the three car garage as required by Code. Mr. Hosea stated the
Heritage plan (the only one affected) was being remodeled to be a three car
garage and the Masters Plan already had a three car garage.
POll-26 2
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
6. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant was aware of a letter received by the
CommiSsion from Guralniek and Gilliland, attorneys for the homeowners'
association. Mr. Hosea stated they were aware of it and had been working
with the association to resolve the problems Chairman Abels asked about the
current status. Mr. Hosea stated it was the position of KSL that the perimeter
improvements were the obligation of J.M. Peters and they agree with the
City's position that the securities that were being held for the improvements
should be used for this tract. They are willing to come to some resolve with
the homeowners. However, in their opinion, It is inappropriate for the City'
to withhold building permits from KSL for items that do not relate to them.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked about the on-going problems regarding the
homeowners' association and whether or not the HOA had reviewed these
plans. Mr. Hosea stated he had several conversations with homeowners and
they all want the property developed in a proper manner~and they are trying
to resolve these issues. Regarding Item #3 of Mr. Guralrdck's letter, KSL
does not believe it is their responsibility as they have not developed any
-- residential property or streets at the Citrus. It is not their intention to create
a master association, but rather a sub-association of the existing HOA. The
first phases that will be developed will be made a part of the current HOA.
8. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed public
comment portion of the public hearing and opened the item for Commission
discussion.
9. .Commissioner Seaton stated she was concerned about the perimeter
landscaping.
10. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that the onlY item before the
Commission at this time, is the issue of architectural compatibility.
11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Seaton to adopt Minute Motion 96-040 approving Site
Development Permit 96-597, subject to f'mdings and conditions.
Unanimously approved.
C. Home Depot DevelOpment Agreement 96-001; a request of Home Depot, Inc., for
approval of a Development Agreement.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development _Department.
PCll-26 3
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if .the applicant
wished to address the Commission. Mr. Greg George, representing Home
Depot, stated they had read the Agreement and agreed with its contents.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked about the phasing schedule. Mr. George stated
there were several alternatives including selling parcel space, and it was too
premature at this stage to address the construction phasing.
4. Commissioner Woodard stated he hoped that the Master Plan, as it related to
Phase Two, would be revised.
5. Mr. John Cook, 54-900 Avenida Rubio, stated he was glad to have Home
Depot coming to La Quinta, but the Commission should adhere to the
landscaping guidelines as defined by the General Plan and require Home
Depot to construct the 50-foot landscaping buffer to hide the required
parking.
6. Mr. Richard Smith, representing the adjacent property owner to the west,
referred to Page 091 of the Document, and the traffic signal they were
requesting, be built as part of Phase One' on Highway 111. When the project
was before the City Council, the traffic signal which was originally shown on
the property line, was moved 100-f&et to the east. As it is shown on the site
plan, they would have to go through a parking lot to get to their property.
Staff assured them they would have an unobstructed driveway to their
prOperty. Mr. Smith stated that if the signal is to be constructed in phase one,
how can the traffic get to Home Depot without going through the meandering
parking area. They have talked to CalTrans and could fred no one who had
talked to anyone from the City. It is understood that Caltrans has a policy
that signals will be at quarter mile spacing and there are o.nly three properties
. between Jefferson Street and Dune Palms and it is their concern that Caltrans
has no flexibility to move that signal to the property line. How will the
people leaving Home Depot exit onto Highway 111 and how will they get to
their property.
7. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public
hearing. Community Development Director Jerry .Herman stated that the
Highway 111 signal will be built during Phase one. Home Depot will be
providing the access to the properties to the west and the signal was moved
due to the properties to the south as well as the north. Home Depot is
conditioned to provide access to the property to the west. In considering the
signal site, the City had to consider all property owners on both the north and
south sides of the street.
PC 11-26 4
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
8. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain why this property owner was
not being provided the signal as discussed at the Planning Commission
meeting. Staff explained that Caltrans required the City to place the signal
at the quarter mile mark. The City was looking at the entire area and not just
the property to the north. The signal is being situated according to the best
location to serve the ~ntire area.
9. Commissioner Butler asked if Mr. Smith could go to Caltrans and request the
signal be changed.' Staff stated the policy of Caltmns is quarter mile spacing.
Home Depot will be building before Mr. Smith's property is developed, and
Caltrans will only address the signal sites as the projects are constructed.
Discussions followed regarding current developments on Highway 111 and
· their egress and ingress onto Highway 111. Staff stated the City is trying to
achieve a full traffic movement both east and west.
10. Commissioner Woodard asked if the property owner had time to go to
Caltrans before the development of Phase two to resolve the problem. Staff
-- stated that the signal will be built before Phase Two is constructed.
11. Commissioner Woodard asked if the circulation Plan could be rearranged to
have the pads changed to allow a better flow to the property to the west. Staff
stated it was not their desire to create a frontage road and the circulation
pattern will be before the Commission when Phase Two is proposed.
12. COmmissioner Woodard asked if the signal would have a paved driveway
leading to parcel one. Staff explained that the driveway would be constructed
to lead the patrons to the parking lot and discussion followed regarding the
circulation plan.
13. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern regarding the Specific Plan attached
to .the Development Agreement had not been updated since the prior approval
by the City Council. The language used on Page 89 was confusing regarding
the signal installation and needs to be cleaned up before recordation. The
split-face block required for the back wall, needs to be identified as to the
direction it faces.
14. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain the 50-foot landscaping
requirement. Staff stated the General plan states that a 50-foot buffer of
landscaping be provided and Home Depot would only have 43-feet of
landscaping along Highway 111 with 76 feet at the comer of Jefferson Street
and Highway 111.
PCI 1-26 5
Planning commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
15. Commissioner Butler stated that if the signal was to be installed during Phase
One, it appeared that the circulation did not enhance the parcels to the west.
A person enters right into a restaurant and does not address the property to
the west. Staff stated that Phase Two is subject to future Planning
Commission review. This plan may or may not be the final plan that is
reviewed by the Commission and the Commission can address these issues
at that time. The position of the signal has been established. Commissioner
Buffer asked that Parcel Two have a direct access from Highway 111. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this is not an issue that .is before'the
Planning Commission. The specific details will come back when the
Planning Commission reviews Parcel Two.
16.' Commissioner Woodard stated he could not vote in favor of the
Development Agreement without some language in the motion to address this
problem.
17. Commissioner .Tyler asked if it wasn't addressed on Page 82 where a
reciprocal access would' be dealt with in Phase Two.
18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Resolution 96-037 approving the Home
Depot Development Agreement and attachments as submitted with the
updating of the Specific Plan.
19. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that the Development Agreement
covers both parcels but in the Agreement it stipulates that Phase Two would
come back for planning Commission review.
20. Commissioner Woodard asked if the signal would be installed during Phase
One or at the time it is warranted. Staff clarified that the signal would be
warranted at the completion of Phase One.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Buffer, Gardner, Newkirk, Steaton, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Woodard. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
D. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 96-053, an Amendment to Municipal Code, Section
9.60.130-Recreational Vehicles; a request of the City for an Amendment to the
current Zoning Code regarding recreational vehicles.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked .for the staff report.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the staff report a copy of which is on file in the Community
PC11-26 6
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
Development Department. Staff distributed .to the Commission numerous
correspondences that had been received regarding the RV regulations for their
information.
2. Mr. Dan Corey, 77-671 Calle Potrero, stated he had a motor vehicle home
which was in operational condition and was a major part of his earthquake
preparedness kit. He has been called upon for emergency services during
simulations drills in which his RV served as a mobile command post. This
makes it important to have it at arms reach. It is an injustice to have them
inaccessible.
3. Mr. Gary Doty, 44-525 Marguerite Court, stated that the way his lot is
designed it is impossible to put a mobile home in his sideyard. He stated the
new twenty-four hour limit does not make sense. He asked what a fixed
colmection was as when he prepared his 'RV to use it, he would have it
connected to his house for periods of longer than 24-hours during the summer
months. "Fixed Connection" needs to be de£med. Visitors come by for three
to fiVe day visits, and now they cannot stay with them and hook up. In his
--- opinion, Option One is fairest, but does not meet the needs of the citizens of
this town.
4. Mr. John Cook, 54-900 Avenida Rubio, stated he chose to live in the Cove
so he WOuld have a place to put his RV. He wanted it close for life-support
systems. The new RV requirements are vindictive and overbearing. An RV
should be allowed in the sideyard. The way this is written it leaves the
Commission without guidance, or policy direction. He suggested sending it
back to staff to put it together with a policy and a program that follows that
policy.
5. Mrs. Ellen Silva, 54-060 Cortez, stated she had a small 1200 square foot'
house so she parks her boat next to the house. Before she purchased the boat,
they checked with City Hall to see if there were any restrictions 'against
parking her boat in her driveway. At that time there were none. Since the
new regulations have been passed, she has received a letter from the City
staling they would be citing her for the RV storage. The property next door
is very unkept and it is never cited. If the property owner is taking care of
their property and their RV, they should not be cited.
__ 6. Mr. Mike Seams, 52-925 Avenida Bermudas, stated that he understood the
need for a policy pertaining to the upkeep of RV's. When he purchased his
RV, he built a wall and pad, but when he did the City would not allow him
to build a six foot wall. Unless the regulations has been changed, he still
cannot build the six foot wall, only a four foot high wall. Even though the
PCl 1-26 7
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
RV is screened, the RV is still above the wall. He understands that a RV
storage center is to be built on Adams Street next to .Wal-Mart, is this why
this the RV ordinance was passed. Chairman Abels clarified that this had no
has no bearing on this item. The Commission is taking public comments at
this time on this subject. The final decision of the City Council will not
please everyone. Mr. Seams stated he would like to work with the City to
formulate the policies.
7. Mr. Steve Grace, 53-100 Madero, stated he had been a resident of La Quinta
since 1984, and they own a 5th wheel that is currently parked on their
property. He questioned the options that have been presented by staff. All
four options pertain to an average 50-foot lot. These options give the average
lot four different relief situations. In regard to the options, the City is
penalizing the persons with the oversized lot.
8. Mr. Carl Killer, 53'965 Avenida Cortez, stated he was opPosed to this
ordinance due to the expense that people have gone 'to accommodate their
motor homes and these reStrictions are unfair. His motor home has been
burglarized twice in security parking lots and he now keeps it parked close
to his house. Anyone who moved to the Cove to have a nice place to place
their RV, should be entitled to do so after the fact. This ordinance should be
changed.
9. Mr. A. C. Moore, 53-795 Avenida Juarez, stated his concern about the time
it took to pass this ordinance to cause these changes. He bought his RV in
May and before purchasing it, he checked with the City to be sure he would
not be violating any City ordinances.. He chose La Quinta as he did not want
to live in a gated community. He bought his RV because City saw nO reason
to not park his RV at his house. The Planning Commission passed these
regulations without the input from the community. Residents, as voters, if
they have. a large enough contingency, require the Commission not only
listen, but appease them. Compromise is not. a matter of appeasement. He
noted that a study was made of other cities RV regulations, but those
regulations do not pertain to this community. These regulations apply to
gated communities and he chose not to live in a gated community because he
did not want the rigid roles. It is up to the Commission to establish roles that
the residents can live by so their RV's can be secure they can have
superViSion over it rather than putting it in a storage center.
10. Mr. Paul McCallaugh, 52-045 Martinez, stated he agreed with Mr. Moore.
If they wanted to live in a gated community, they would have moved there.
People who work for a living, should be able to live as they see fit as long as
it doesn't break the basic laws of nature. Given an average 50 by 100-foot
PC11-26 8
Planning. Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
lot, when the sideyard is barely 5-feet, an 8-foot RV will not fit. It may' fit on
a corner lot, but not everyone is on the corner. How do they get an 8-foot
wide RV down a 5-foot si&yard. The RV owners need to have them where
they can have access andkeep an eye on it themselves.
11. Chairman Abels stated the Commission has been looking at nmnerous cities,
· such as Baldwin Park and Glendora which are a working mans' city, as well
as others. The Commission will take all these comments into consideration
and reach a solution that is compatible with as many people as they can.
12. Mr. Walter Murray, 53,300 Velasco, stated he lives on a single lot like most
of the Cove and there is no way to hide an RV from view. No one has
mentioned putting a cover over the RV. This would be a compromise, a
fence just can't be done on these small lots.
13. Ms. Carol Jones, 52-805 Avenida Rubio, stated she also has a 50-foot lot and
they have a boat. Before buying the boat they checked with the City and built
a pad to park the boat. The only way they can hide the boat is to build a
structure, and they cannot afford this. Option One appears to be the fairest.
14. Mr. Gerald, Flowers 53-763 Avenida Obregon, asked why the City has to
have an ordinance regarding RV at all. He understands the need to have
ordinance to see that they are maintained and not for habitation on the streets,
but an ordinance is not necessary as the neighbors will complain if they
aren't well maintained. He understands not wanting to have people live in
them, but why the need to have an ordinance.
15. . There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the Public
comment portion of the public hearing.
16. Commissioner Tyler asked that staff explain how this ordinance had come to
be passed. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that two
years ago the City of La Quinta started the process to change the Zoning
Ordinance. He went on to explain the' formal process the City had gone
through to make these changes. After reviewing this for two years, the
Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council who held
public hearings and adopted the Oridnance.
17. Commissioner Tyler explained that the entire ordinance is over 200 pages and
the RV regulations are a small portion of that document. During the process,
no RV owner was singled out, it was a part of the process. The public had
the oppommity to speak and no one did so at that time.
PC11-26 9
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
18. Commissioner Butler asked staff which Option was from the original Zoning
Ordinance. Staff clarified from the staff report, those options that were from
the current ordinance and explained the difference between the options.
19. Commissioner Woodard asked how many people live on the 50-foot lots.
Staff stated there were approximately 6,000 lots in the Cove. About 4,000
have been constructed on and of those some have been merged. Of those
lots, the majority are-50 by 100-feet. Commissioner Woodard asked how
many of the 4,000 have RV's. Staff stated they do not know.
20. Commissioner Tyler stated this is not a problem that is unique to the 50 by
100 lots. There are a lot of l°ts who only have a five foot sideyard.
21. Commissioner Woodard stated that if the majority of the people have an RV,
then they should "rule the roost". This is an on-going issue of' most cities.
There is the issue of aesthetics, land use, property values, upkeep, etc. To
those who do not have an RV, it is not a concern. To those that do not, it is
an unattractive element. Commissioner Woodard stated he had empathy with
the RV owners, but it is the responsibility of the .Planning Commission to
look at the overall community.
22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Gardner/Newkirk that in view of the comments made by the
public and the community, this item be continued to December 10, 1996, for
further deliberation. Unanimously approved.
Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:51 p.m. and reconvened at 8:56 p.m.
E. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 96-054; a request of the City for an Amendment to
the Sign Ordinance, Chapter 9.160.
1. Chairman Abels' opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
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. Staff stated they would like to add an additional change on
Page 008, #15 under Exempt Signs for non-profit organizations to increase
the size of the sign from three square feet to six square feet.
'2. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify why the directional sign for a
non-profit organization should be increased. Staff clarified that the Chamber
of Commerce had installed two signs under the current regulations and it was
determined that the wording was too small to read while traveling. During
the interim construction on Highway 111, a larger size was temporarily
allowed to be installed and it was determined that the larger size was more
readable.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
3. Commissioner Gardner asked if the original sign would be adequate at, er the
street construction was over. Staff stated it would not due to the wording
being too small to read. Commissioner Gardner asked what about the profit'
paying customers; would they also get an enlarged sign size? Staff stated
they are governed by other parts of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Commissioner Gardner asked about the "Grand Opening" banners being
installed. Planning Manager Christine di Iofio stated they can be up for a
period of 60-days. Commissioner Gardner stated they need to be more
restrictive on the length of time.
5. Commissioner Tyler addressed Item #J of the proposed ordinance. Staff
clarified that a new business has 45-days after opening to apply for a banner.
CommiSsioner Tyler asked why the business owner would not have the
banner up on the day he opened. Staff explained that sometimes the business
is open but not completed and they are waiting to get signs up before putting
up a banner. Discussion followed regarding time lengths for banners.
Following discussion, it was determined that for a "Grand Opening" banner,
an applicant would be allowed 30 days to apply and 30 days to display it.
6. Commissioner Gardner askedif when a person applies for a business permit
are they informed of the sign regulations. Staff stated not until they ask about
the signs and then they are directed to the Community Development
Department to answer those questions. Discussions followed regarding the
process for obtaining a sign.
7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Woodard to adopt Resolution 96-038 recommending
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 96-054 with the changes to the
six square feet for non,profit organizations and the length of time for banners
being 30-days to apply and 30-days to be up.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Seaton, Tyler,
Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
VI. BUSINESS SESSION: None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Chairman Abels asked City Attorney Dawn Honeywell if in light of the City Council
decision, was there a way for the Planning Commission to hold Study Sessions. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the concern was that public hearing items were
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
being discussed during the study session. If the Commission wants to discuss
potential issues they can do so, but if the item is on the agenda, they are not to be
discussed prior to the meeting in fear of a person raising the issue of"due process".
Study Sessions would need to be for general policy discussion.
1. Commissioner Gm'dner asked if we have never been sued, why would we
worry? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell because of what has come up in case
law over the last ten years that makes it necessary to be prepared for this.
2. Commissioner Gardner stated that during .their study sessions, that are still
being held by other cities, applicants are in attendance and they are open to
the public; Commissioners have been warned that during these meetings they
are not to make any decisions and this has been going on for a long time.
City Attorney Dawn Honeywell reiterated that the concern is that no public
hearing issue be discussed prior to the hearing, date and time. In addition, the
changes to the Brown Act have caused the Council to make necessary
changes. Study sessions open the door for a procedural attack on the "due
process" front. If the City Council feels it is necessary to cancel study
sessions, it doesn't seem fight for the Commission to continue.
3. Commissioner Gardner asked how the Commission could sit and talk with
staff or counsel regarding agenda items without being in the public hearing,
such as a forum whereby they could discuss and understand City policies,
even if it were called by some other name. Can the Commission have a
discussion with legal counsel under any other forum. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated there was no reason why the Commission couldn't ask any
question they had during open session. If there is an issue that should be
discussed in a closed session, then the Commission can do sO. The City
Attorney went on to explain how closed sessions can be held.
4. Chairman Abels stated it was beneficial to the Commissioners to have the
study session to clarify some of these issues.
5. Commissioner Butler stated that the Commissioners do not have enough time
to review their agenda items, and make decisions without holding study
sessions to discuss their questions. The City Attorney needs to find some
" way for them to meet and discuss these issues. City 'Attorney Dawn
Honeywell asked the Commissioners why they could not ask their questions
during the meeting. If the item is a controversial issue, a continuance can be
requested. Commissioners expressed their concern that this would lead to
extended meetings and continuances.
PCI 1-26 12
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1996
6. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern as to how the Commission Could
discuss these items in a'professional manner. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
stated that references have been made in the public hearings that an item has
been' discussed earlier. More and more statements are being made during
study session meetings.
7. Commissioner Woodard stated that in his opinion, to not have a study session
is inept. He knew of no city that has been sued over study session meetings.
The City is taking the position of being over cautious. Commissioners have
questions and they have to find time to meet with staff and solve these issues.
There must be a way to have a work study session to discuss these issues. He
is uncomfortable discussing some issues openly during a hearing with staff,
counsel, or other commissioners. This would be lacking in organization and
not to the benefit of the Commission. The City Attorney stated the
fundamental issue is~the public hearing requirements where it is discussed
outside of the public hearing makes it suspect.
8. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that the Commission's decision is
made based on the information that 'is presented during the hearing process.
If it is not in the record, it can't be discussed. This is what has created the
problem. The elimination of the study session is to be prepared against
possible lawsuits.
9. Commissioner Seaton stated that since she was new to the Commission, it
was all a learning process and she would like to have a better way to discuss
the agenda items. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that for questions
the Commissioners do not want to discuss during the meeting or don't want
to take time with during the hearing, they can call staff. This is an individual
decision.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a meeting on December 10, 1996. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:38 p.m. on November 26, 1966.
PC11-26 13