PCMIN 07 22 1997 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
July 22, 1997 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 Woodard to lead the flag salute.
B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Butler, Gardner,
Kirk, Seaton, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. It was moved and seconded by
Commissioner Butler/Gardner to excuse Commissioner Tyler. Unanimously
approved.
C. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
_ Honeywell, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
D. Chairman Abels opened the nominations for election of Chair and Vice Chair.
1. Nominations for Chair were opened.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Seaton/Woodard to nominate
Commissioner Butler for Chair.
3. There being no other nominations, it Was moved and second to close the
nominations and Commissioners Butler was elected unanimously.
4. Nominations for Vice Chair were opened.
5. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Abels to nominate
Commissioner Woodard as Vice Chair.
6. There be no other nominations, Commissioner Woodard was elected as Vice
Chair unanimously.
7. Commissioner Butler assumed the Chair and Commissioner Woodard
assumed the Vice Chair.
PC7-22-97 1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 1997
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
A. Staff asked that the Agenda be amended to delete the approval of the Minutes of July
8, 1997.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of June 24, 1997.
There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Seaton
to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved with Commissioner
Kirk abstaining.
B. Chairman Butler asked if there was a Department Report. Staff stated there was
none.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Continued - Zoning Code Amendment 97-056; a request of the City of La Qui'nta for '-
approval of a prohibition of independent used vehicle sales, excluding new vehicle
sales with associated used vehicle sales in the Regional Commercial District.
1. Commissioner Seaton withdrew due to a potential common law conflict in
regard to divided loyalty on advice of the City Attorney.
2. Chairman Butler 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. Staff noted that there currently was one used
vehicle dealership within this area and they had submitted a time extension
request which would be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a furore
date.
3. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to verify when this item would be before
the Commission. Staff stated the extension request would be heard before by
the C6mmission before the implementation of this Code Amendment.
PC7-22-97 2
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 1997
4. Chairman Butler asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Greg Shannon,
74-596 Pepper Tree Drive, Palm Desert, spoke on behalf of Mr. Suitt, owner
of the used vehicle lot, and stated he would like to request the Commission
approve an extension of time for the Conditional Use Permit to allow this
used vehicle dealership to continue operating. Mr. Suitt is hoping to sell the
property within the next year. The lot currently sells between 15-20 cars a
month which produces income for the City. He stated Mr. Suitt' s reason for
asking for this extension was due to the extensive conditions that had been
placec~on the project, the cost involved to meet those conditions, and the time
he had been in operation.
5. Mr. Tom Suitt, 38315 Maracaibo Drive, Palm Springs, owner of the used
vehicle lot, gave the Commission a history of the property. He stated that he
recognized that this use was not a proper use of the property, but due to the
extensive improvements he had been required to make, he believed approval
of this request was warranted. The business does produce $75,000 in revenue
for the city.
6. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public
hearing.
7. Commissioner Kirk asked what the time limit was for noticing this project.
Staff clarified that the issue raised by Mr. Suitt is not on this Agenda, but will
be before the Commission at a later date.
8. Commissioner Gardner clarified that the item before the Commission was the
Code Amendment and that Mr. Suitt's issue will be before the Commission
in August. He further asked for clarification that this Zoning Ordinance
Amendment will not affect Mr. Suitt at this time. Staff stated that the
Amendment would not come into affect until October, if approved by the
Commission and Council.
9. Commissioner Abels stated that Mr. Suitt's request is not an issue before the
Commission at this meeting. Staff confirmed that it was not.
10. Chairman Butler stated that by approving the Amendment the Commission
would be prohibiting any used vehicle sales lot that was not in conjunction
with a new vehicle sales lots. Staff stated this was true.
PC7-22-97 3
Planning Commission Meeting _
July 22, 1997
·
11 There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Gardner/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-
053 recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance
Amendment 97-056, as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Woodard, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Seaton
and Tyler. ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioner Seaton rejoined the meeting.
B. Continued - Site Development Permit 97-606; a request of Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.
for approval to construct a 2,816 square foot Jack in the Box restaurant with drive-
through on Pad Site #3 within the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center currently under
construction.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public heating and asked for the staff report.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Seaton asked staff to identify which signs would face south.
Staff clarified which signs faced the different elevations.
3. Commissioner Seaton clarified that the applicant was asking for two menu
boards and staff was recommending only one. Staff stated that was true.
4. Commissioner Woodard asked what the status was of the small trees that
were to be replaced at the Home Depot site. Staff stated this item did not
relate to this project. Community Development Director Jerry Herman
clarified that correspondence had been received from Home Depot regarding
their difficulty in obtaining the right size trees, but the problem was being
resolved.
5. Commissioner Woodard asked why the site plan that was in their packet waS
not the same as what was being shown on the presentation and was the
Commission approving the total plan. Staff stated the plan before them was
for Jack in the Box restaurant and the remaining of part of Phase II.
Commissioner Woodard stated he still had a problem with the upper parking
PC7-22-97 4
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 1997
and asked if the Commission'was being asked to approve the entire site plan.
Commtmity Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the application
before the Commission was for the approval of a 2,860 square foot Jack in
Box restaurant with drive a through on Pad #3 within the Jefferson Plaza
Center. The applicant had submitted a concept for Parcel 2, but the approval
before the Commission was only for the Site Development Permit for Jack
in the Box restaurant. The Commission would have the opportunity to
review and approve the other parcels as they are submitted. Commissioner
Woodard asked staff to identify the area the Commission was reviewing for
approv, al. Staff identified the area on the site plan for the Commission.
6. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Doug Cooper, Greenburg Farrow Architecture,
representing the applicant, stated the Jack in the Box is the focus of this
request. He further stated that the signs had been an issue at their last
meeting as they were asking for four signs. They were still asking for four
signs. As Jack in the Box is a nationally recognized tenant it is their opinion
they should be allowed to have their standard signs as all other nationally
recognized businesses have four signs. Now that the building is turned more
perpendicular to Highway 111, the signs are needed. With regard to the
height of the berm, the berm and landscaping combined are to reach a total
of four feet. The conditions state that the berm will be four feet. In regard
to the trees at Home Depot, they are having to search for a different tree as
the African Sumac is not available' in the required box size and caliper as
conditioned. However, as stated by staff, the tree issue will be resolved.
7. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify the request again. Staff stated
Pad #3 which was for the Jack in the Box restaurant site was the only issue
before the Commission.
8. Chairman Butler clarified that the item before them is the Site Development
Permit and not the sign program. Staff affirmed that the sign program was
the next item on the Agenda as a separate item. Staff stated Jack in the Box
would be setting the precedent, but the Commission will be reviewing the
buildings for Pads # 1 and #2 when they are submitted in the future.
9. · Commissioner Kirk stated that part of the Conditions of Approval do contain
conditions regarding the signs. Staff stated that a Finding #6 contained in the
Resolution, and Condition g48 regarding the signs are a part of this approval.
As the issues overlay, the Commissioner can combine the two applications.
Discussion followed regarding the two Agenda items.
PC7-22-97 5
Planning Commission Meeting _
July 22, 1997
10. Chairman Butler asked which item would be more important to take first.
Staff ~uggested that staff give the staff report for the sign program and
combine the two items for Commission discussion. It was determined that
the Commission will finish discussion regarding the Site Development
Permit first.
11. Mr. Mike Walsh, Jack in the Box, Development Department, stated he would
like to request corporate identity signs on the face of the building. At the last
meeting, he understood that there would be sufficient signs at this location.
They are asking for signs on the east, west and Highway 111 elevations. The
east 'side is the most important as this is the entry to the Center. In addition,
they would like to use a channel sign on the east side.
12. Commissioner Woodard stated that with the signs on the south, east, and west
side, why is the sign on the north side important. Mr. Walsh stated the north
is important so that those in the Center can find their location.
13. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public
hearing.
14. Chairrhan Butler stated the signs were confusing, but beyond the signs, has
the parking problem been solved? The trees and the separation from the entry
area had been resolved and lowering the building silhouette had created an
excellent product. The issue of signs is the question and it would help if they
were able to see a better picture of what the applicant was asking. The sign
on the east elevation is being requested to be enlarged and he did not see
where it would fit. Mr. Walsh stated it was his understanding, from the last
meeting that staff was recommending signs on all four sides, but the staff
report only recommends two sides, deleting the east side entirely. He was
asking to retain the east side signs with channel letters and increase the sign
size above the drive through window. Instead of the 2-foot by 6-foot square
sign, they wOuld use the channel signs.
15. Commissioner Woodard asked where the east elevation sign would be placed.
Mr. Walsh stated it would be horizontal, 10 to 12 feet long, above the drive
through window. Commissioner Woodard stated the structure is only 10 or
12 feet long. The sign would be on the fascia for the entire length of the east
elevation. The south and west elevation would be as presented on the plans.
The west and south elevation would have no change. Commissioner Seaton
asked if the west would stay as submitted. Mr. Walsh stated that was true.
PC7-22-97 6
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 1997
16. Chairman Butler stated he would like to see a sign on the east elevation, but
it should not cover the entire area. Discussion followed regarding possible
alternatives.
17. Commissioner Woodard stated that others have received the same amount of
signs and in some instances, more.
18. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant preferred the box or the channel
letters. Mr. Walsh stated he would prefer to have a larger red box sign.
Commissioner Kirk clarified that the box was six and a quarter square feet
and the channel letters would be 15 square feet. In addition, the trademark
sign was much more preferable than the larger sign. Staff clarified that the
Commission was approving the signs on the east, west, and south elevations,
with no sign on the north side, and only one menu board.
19. Them being no further comment, Chairman Butler closed the public hearing.
20. Commissioner Woodard complemented the applicant on his resubmital which
met the Commission's request. He asked to see the color board. Staff stated
it was the same as the last meeting. Commissioner Woodard informed the
applicant that if Home Depot was planning to submit plans for Pads # 1 and
#2 as shown on this plan, as well as the parking layout, he would have a
problem.
21. Commissioner Kirk stated he agreed with the east elevation sign and the box
sign.
22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioner Abels/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-054
approving Site Development Permit 97-606, subject to the Findings and
Conditions of Approval as modified:
a. Signs would be permitted on the east, west, and north elevations.
23. Commissioned Gardner asked whether the four foot berm was being
approved, or as the applicant requested. It was his understanding that the
Sheriff's Department requested that the interior not be hidden. Staff clarified
that in the Department's comments, there were no comments from the
Sheriffs Department regarding this. Discussion followed regarding the
height of the berming and landscaping.
PC7-22-97 7
Planning Commission Meeting _
July 22, 1997
24. Commissioner Woodard stated that berming has a much greater affect.
·
25. Commissioner Gardner asked what site plan the Commission would receive.
Staff stated it would be the site plan as revised by the applicant.
26. Commissioner Woodard asked that the motion be amended to require the
landscaping plan be returned to the Planning Commission for approval.
27. Commissioners Abels/Kirk amended their motion to include the landscaping
plans be resubmitted for approval by the Commission.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Woodard, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Tyler.
ABSTAIN: None.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Sign Permit 97-383; a request of Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. for approval of a planned
sign program for Phase Two of the Jefferson Plaza Shopping Center.
1. Chair[n. an Butler asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa
presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on
file in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
3. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to clarify the location of the monument
sign. Staff stated it was required that it .be moved further west.
Commissioner Gardner asked why they wanted the sign moved. Staff stated
that customers coming from the west will mm into the shopping center at the
signal and their first opportunity to see the sign would be at this location. By
putting it at the signal it would encourage people to enter at the signal rather
than at the illegal right turn-in/out location.
4. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to identify the other monument sign
locations.
PC7-22-97 8
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 1997
5. Commissioner Kirk asked why moving the sign to the west would be a better
breaking up of the traffic. It might be better if the Home Depot customer
entered off Jefferson Street rather than going through the parking lot maze.
Staff clarified that other tenants of the Center would be identified on the sign
as well.
6. Commissioner Woodard stated he was surprised that there was no sign at the
comer of Jefferson and Highway 111. People traveling west will enter Home
Depot at their parking lot entrance. Those traveling east will use the signal
entrance causing this signal entrance to become a major impact on the
parking lot. Will this signal become the entrance to the tenants to the west
of this site or will there be another signal at the other location? Staff stated
there will be no signal to the west of the one proposed. Commissioner
Woodhrd stated that the monument sign will then have to identify all the
other uses and asked where the other tenants signs would be located.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the tenants to the
west would be able to enter off of Dune Palms Avenue or Highway 111
which will be signalized. Discussion followed regarding monument sign
locations.
7. Commissioner Seaton asked what the size of the other tenants would be and
what other tenants would be present. Staff explained the plan.
8. Commissioner Gardner asked if a traffic study had been completed to show
where their customers would be coming from, east or west. Staff, stated that
was a question for the applicant, Mr. Cooper.
9. Mr. Tom Searles, consultant for Home Depot, stated this sign would not have
Home Depot on it. West bound traffic will not use the signal to enter Home
Depot. This monument sign is for the future tenants that have not been
obtained yet. As to where the majority of the traffic would come from, it is
unknown. Right now the traffic comes from the east as their are more houses
in that'direction, but they believe the future traffic will come from both areas.
In regard to the second phase of development, it will be market driven and the
uses will come back to the Planning Commission as they are obtained. They
do not have an understanding of the parking until these tenants are obtained.
PC7-22-97 9
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 1997
10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-
055 approving the Planned Sign Program for Phase Two of the Jefferson
Plaza Shopping Center for Sign Permit 97-383, subject to the Findings and
Conditions of Approval as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Woodard, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Tyler.
ABSTAIN: None.
B. Continued - Site Development Permit 97-611; a request of Century Crowell for
approval of a new prototype single family house plan for Tract 27899.
1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa
presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on
file in the Community Development Department. Staff pointed out that for
a two car garage, the doors are to have a minimum 16-foot wide clearance
and the garage door opening shall be a minimum distance of two feet between
the garage and property line.
2. Chairman Butler asked for the width of the single car garage door opening.
Staff stated it was seven feet wide
3. Commissioner Woodard asked what the width of the three car garage would
be. Staff stated it would be 31-feet from outside to outside.
4. Chairman Butler asked if there were any conditions that the driveway be the
same width as the garages. Staff stated that Condition//7 required them to
be the minimum width of the required garage door opening. If the
Commission wanted to make sure the driveway is the same on all the plans,
the condition could be amended to delete the word "required".
5. Commissioner Kirk questioned Condition//3 as to whether it was to read
"shall" or "will". Staff agreed it should be "shall". Commissioner Kirk
asked what the Riverside County Agricultural Commission had to do with
approving the plants. Staff stated they reviewed the plant pallet to make sure
no prohibited plants are brought in from outside the Coachella Valley.
PC7-22-97 ' 10 '
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 1997
6. Chairman Butler stated his concern that the painted walls would not hold up
against the watering. Staff stated they could be require to be an integral color
other than grey.
7. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Dennis Cunningham, representing the applicant, stated he
had only one comment regarding the width of the garage door and the two-
foot side returns. Their firm builds and sells 200 homes in a year and have
never had any resistence from their buyers regarding these two issues. They
get 30% of their buyers from referrals. When it comes to this type of issue,
they believe they are the professionals and can determine whether a one foot
or two foot side is best. They are confident that these designs would meet the
Commission's approval. As they have not had any problems, they would not
like to be required to change the design.
8. Commissioner Kirk asked what the selling price would be for the different
units. Mr. Cunningham stated that for the Del Rey it will be a continuation
of what is being built now, $114,000-$145,000, depending on the upgrades.
The Marbella would be $140,000 to $160,000, which are a step above the
Topaz. Topaz, which is in its last phase, is a step above the Del Rey.
Commissioner Kirk stated it appears the public wants the three-car garages.
Mr. Cunningham stated the market is open to two car garages. Because of
the current zoning regulations regarding the number of garages being
calculated on the number of bedrooms, it has put a burden on the industry.
They would prefer the buying public determine the number of garages.
Commissioner Kirk asked what Mr. Cunningham thought about the driveway
apron. Mr. Cunningham stated that normally they run the garage widths to
the width of the door plus six inches.
9. Commissioner Gardner stated that Century had sold a number of houses and
he was very satisfied with their products. His concern was with the area
between the single car and double car garage as it seems to be out of balance.
It puts the car to close to the inside wall of the garage prohibiting a person
from exiting their car on the right side. Mr. Cunningham stated that from an
architectural standpoint they are experiencing a resistence from the buying
public to having nothing but garage fronts on the houses. Therefore they
want to create more of a golf cart look by off-setting the third garage.
PC7-22-97 11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 1997
10. Commissioner Abels questioned their wisdom as to whether the buying
public would recognize the difference. Mr. Cunningham stated it is not a
sellers market; buyers are sophisticated and know what they want. He would
prefer to have the industry dictate.
11. Comm. issioner Woodard stated he is philosophically going to stop making
comments regarding the design of tract homes as it is unfair to compare
custom homes to tract homes. It is unfair to ask this company to make
changes based on custom home design. However, he is totally supportive of
staff's recommendation and he believes the house elevations do need
additional detail and a differential between the face of the surfaces. Without
dimensional change the house will be somewhat lacking.
12. Commissioner Seaton asked where the models would be located. Mr.
Ctmningham stated they would be at the comer of Miles Avenue and Adams
Street. Commissioner Seaton asked if they would have ten parking spaces.
Mr. Cunningham stated they would have ten parking spaces..
13. Chairman Butler asked staff if there was a requirement for patio awning on
the south facing houses. Staff stated a policy had been initiated and was
being adhered to, but was not included in the adoption of the new Zoning
Ordinance and therefore, was no longer required. Mr. Cunningham clarified
further that the Building and Safety Director had stated that from an energy
standpoint the requirement could not be upheld. Therefore, it was not
includ.ed in the changes to the Zoning Ordinance.
14. Chairman Butler commended Mr. Cunningham on the design of the homes,
the mix, and colors, and in particular the walls in the dark brown color for the
Del Rey project. Mr. Cunningham stated it was his understanding that this
new color would not be allowed under the new Zoning Ordinance.
Discussion followed regarding the block wall. Staff stated that as it relates
to masonry fencing, they should refer to Section 9.60.030.3 of the Code.
15. Commissioner Abels commended Mr. Cunningham on submitting a complete
package for the Commission to review and stated it was a fine product.
PC7-22-97 12
·
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 1997
16. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Woodard to adopt Planning Commission Resolution
97-056 approving Site Development Permit 97-611, subject to the Findings
and Conditions of Approval as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk Seaton, Woodard, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Tyler.
ABSTAIN: None.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Abels stated he would like to go on record as stating that since the
dissolution of the Design Review Board and with the increase in the Planning
Commission x'nembers from five to seven members, it is important that the Planning
Commission have some members who are fully qualified in design issues. The
Commission should listen to their comments as this was the purpose in consolidating
the two Commissions.
1. Chairman Butler stated he agreed with this comment and he would encourage
any member of the Commission that has specific feelings regarding design
review to state them; however, the comments should not challenge the
applicant or become an issue. At times, some of the design review questions
becomes too intense and rather than being an improving factor it becomes a
critical issue. The Commission has a right to take these issues into
consideration, but they should be monitored.
2. Commissioner Woodard stated that it was his understanding that the purpose
of the Commission was to look at the design and zoning issues of every
submittal. If this is not tree, he would like to have it clarified at this meeting.
3. Chairman Butler stated it is staWs responsibility to make a recommendation
based on their design review before it is submitted to the Commission. The
PC7-22-97 13
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 1997
Commission then has the right to review staff's recommendation and either
accept or reject them. If a Commissioner does not agree, then that
Commissioner should be monitored to see that those criticisms are
constructive and to the point.
4. Staff stated its review of the project is based on its compliance with all
adopted policies, regulations, etc., and then makes a recommendation to the
Planning Commission.
5. Commissioner Woodard stated that the Commission's responsibility is then
two-fold; the Planning Commission looks at the design issues as
recommended by staff and any other issues any Commissioner may have.
6. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that the Commission
is to review projects as they relate to the adopted goals and policies of the
City of La Quinta and its regulations. Staff also does this and brings this
recommendation to the Commission. There are no adopted goals and polices
that relate to design except for area known as The Village.
7. Commissioner Woodard stated that at one time there were explicate
directions regarding how the Commission was to review a project regarding
review and design. If this was tree, he would like to have this agendized for
discussion.
8. Commissioner Abels stated that regardless of whether or not there were
specific guidelines, they were only a plus or minus. The Commission has an
obligation to approve projects if they have met all the City's requirements.
9. Commissioner Woodard suggested that all Commissioners have contributed
design ideas and criticism and this is what has added to the.design of the City.
They all may not had the same opinion, but it is the Commission's
responsibility to look at projects from the standpoint of design, color,
materials, etc. He will try in the future to keep his comments to a minimum.
10. Chairman Butler stated this discussion was not meant to be an attack on
Commissioner Woodard, but in terms of the Commission's goals, it is their
responsibility to smoothly transition the applicant through the process in
terms of reviewing the project design and zoning regulations in a timely
manner. He has however, sat through meeting after meeting hearing criticism
PC7-22-97 14
Planning Commission Meeting
July 22, 1997 ·
from Commissioner Woodard and if those criticisms were put in the form of
a motion which would allow the Commission to vote on them, it would have
accomplished a lot more in less time. Then over time, he will be able to see
which direction the Commission agrees and disagrees. The projects need to
be reviewed in a business fashion. He would suggest that Commissioners sit
with staff and let staff put some of their concerns in the staff report and let the
Commission review them while reading the reports. Micro analyzing the
project should not be done at the Commission meeting.
11. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to look at zoning in terms of what the
Commission's function is and provide an oppommity where the Commission
could have a discussion and develop a policy to guide them.
12. Commissioner Woodard stated he was bringing this issue up because he had
wanted to have a discussion with the Commission regarding this issue. If he
was wrong, then he will back off. He concurred with Commissioned Kirk's
statement.
·
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Abels to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting to be held on August
12, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:21 p.m. on July
22, 1997.
PC7-22-97 15