2001 10 09 PC Minutes MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
October 9, 2001 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Robbins to lead the
flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert
Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City
Attorney Kathy Jensen, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior
Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, and Executive
Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT:
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
September 25, 2001. Commissioner Butler asked that Pages 7 and 8,
be corrected to read that Commissioner Kirk was present for all three
votes. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded
by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to approve the minutes as corrected.
Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report:
1. None. Commissioner Kirk asked staff if there was still time to
submit comments on the General Plan Update. Staff stated they
would need them as soon as possible.
V. PRESENTATIONS: None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 10-9-01 .wpd ]
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2001
VI. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Specific Plan 2000-048, Amendment # 1; a request of Forrest K. Haag for
RJT Homes, Inc. to modify development standards and text information
for a private residential development on no more than 178 houses on
approximately 73 acres located at the southwest corner of Avenue §0
and Jefferson Street.
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. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer informed the Commission that in the course of plan
checking the project, it was found that the retention basin did not
comply with the Conditions of Approval. Staff asked the
developer to explain this and they said the lake level was raised so
they are unable to retain storm water in the lake and this caused
it to spill down to the retention basins causing them to be
larger/deeper. Normally, staff has not allowed the depth in a
retention basin to go beyond five feet in depth. The one exception
has been the Tradition which has a detention basin 35 feet deep
with a water depth of ten feet when the l O0-year storm is
contained.
2. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to clarify whether it was the
depth of the water in the retention basin that is not more than five
feet or the depth of the retention basin before adjacent grade in
not more than five feet. Staff stated the intent is to not have
more than five feet of water and not more than six feet deep at
the closest point between the lowest point in the road adjacent to
the retention basin. Commissioner Robbins stated he thought the
retention basin at the Adams Park was deeper than six feet. Staff
stated the upper bench of the Park slopes .toward the retention
basin which reaches six feet. It is greater on the west side
adjacent to the street.
3. Staff stated that in order to make an exception to this project, it
would take an amendment to the Specific Plan. In this case it is
possible to consider deeper basins. The Public Works Department
has put together criteria that if more proposals are submitted in
the future, staff will have something to compare them against.
Staff is asking the Commission to consider depth versus width and
G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 10-9-01 .wpd ~.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2001
the issues associated with this. This applicant is asking for a
water depth of nine feet in an 11 foot deep basin. Discussion
followed regarding the depth of retention basins.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked how high the lake was raised. Staff
stated two feet.
5. Chairman Abels asked staff to clarify the safety issues. Staff
stated that to address some of the safety concerns, staff is
recommending that if they go to deeper basins for every additional
five feet of water, eight foot wide benches must be installed.
Therefore, if you were to go off the edge the deepest the water
would be is five feet. Staff is also requiring them to make them
open spaces and possibly gated and padlocked during rainy
seasons.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked where the square footage was
measured from for the floor of the basin, or projected surface.
Staff stated they are intended to be the size of the lot dedicated
for the basin, so it would be the boundary of the lot.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked why staff was not allowing the use turf
o.n the bottom of the basin. Staff stated they are more sensitive
to water conservation and asked that the flat areas be a desert
scape and the sloped areas be either turfed or planted with a
ground cover and the bottom be some type of landscape material.
8. Commissioner Tyler stated the table on Page 45 of the staff report
is asking for ten feet deep and the guideline states it should be a
30,000 square foot lot instead of the 20,000 square foot lot they
are suggesting; can the applicant comply with this. Staff stated
the applicant has stated they can comply with this requirement.
9. Commissioner Butler stated the staff report sites the percolation
should be 240 hours for 20,000 square feet; does the developer
have to show that the basin would absorb at that rate. Staff
stated they are required to give the City soil testings and the City
has set requirements to measure this with. Commissioner Butler
asked if a developer does have an area where the percolates will
absorb at this rate, can they reduce the size of the basin? Will the
City set any standards on this? Staff stated the standard is
contained in the Zoning Code and the only time an exception
would be considered is in a Specific Plan. Staff is asking the
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 10-9-01 .wpd :~
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2001
Commission to help set those standards at this meeting. If we
clear the safety and percolation issues, there is a trade off that
could be beneficial.
10. Commissioner Robbins stated he had concerns in regard to the
reducing the setback to ten feet in areas not adjacent to open
space. He is not sure that is what the City wants, if this would
set a precedent.
1 1. Chairman Abels asked the difference between bench and terraced
area. Staff stated they were the same thing.
12. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Chris Bergh, M.D.S. Consulting, representing the
applicant, gave a presentation on the request.
1 3. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant if this was an aesthetic
issue. Mr. Bergh stated yes, as some of the houses near the lake
would have to look down to see the lake.
1 4. Commissioner Butler asked if the water issue was within the water
conservation boundaries.
15. Commissioner Robbins stated it was his assumption the project
would have to meet the City's Zoning Code and would have the
proper mix between water surface and other types of landscaping.
1 6. Commissioner Tyler stated many projects would like to use lakes
to augment their retention basin to meet the 100 year flood
condition. Is he correct that they are saying they are already at
high water levels with the minimum levels? Mr. Bergh stated 40%
of the retention is within the lake area and 60% of the balance
goes to the retention basin.
17. Commissioner Kirk asked about the 10 foot setback. Mr. Forrest
Haag, speaking for the applicant, stated there are 1 0 foot setbacks
on the golf courses. It is perceived, on most projects with golf
courses, that the rear yard area belonging to the golf course is
owned by the property owners. In this project there are lots that
front on to the cul-de-sacs and back up to one another. There are
homeowners who want large footprint homes on small lots. They
do not want the problem of taking care of a large rear yard, nor do
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PClO-9-01 .wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2001
they want a pool. According to their marketing information there
are people that do not want this large backyard. There are some
homeowners who want the extended rear yard to look over a golf
course, or in this instance a lake, and others who want no part of
that.
18. Commissioner Butler asked if there was room in a 10 foot rear
yard for a pool. Mr. Haag stated they can do an infinity-edge pool.
Discussion followed regarding the economics of a ten foot
setback.
1 9. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding
this project. There being no further discussion, the public
participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for
Commission discussion.
20. Commissioner Robbins stated he has problems with the ability of
these homes to be scrunched together, As a compromise he could
- support 30 feet between the back of one house to the back of the
other.
21. Commissioner Kirk stated he supports staff's recommendation
regarding drainage. He does, however, has a problem with the ten
foot setback. He does not mind more density, but in the right
location and this project is not a high density project. He agrees
there are some people who would want the smaller rear yard
setback, but he is not sure this is what they want in La Quinta.
Therefore, he is against that portion of their request. He agrees
with staff in that he would like to see some sort of compromise
and perhaps Commissioner Robbins' suggestiOn might work.
Another way may be to have the 20-foot setback as an average
rather than a minimum so if there are architectural elements that
jet into the setback, they can account for them and balance out
the rear yard as an average.
22. Commissioner Butler stated he is satisfied with the retention issue,
but the developer is the one putting himself at risk in regard to the
density and whether the setback is ten feet or 20. He is uncertain
whether or not the Commission should make that decision for
them. He has no objection to the ten foot setback if the developer
believes he can sell the product.
23. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify that the only
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1 O-9-O1 .wpd .~
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2001
architectural projections being considered were those in the front
yard setback. Staff stated that was correct. Commissioner Tyler
stated he would not like to give up on the 20 foot setback. He
had some concerns in regard to the conditions. Conditions #12
and #18 relate to the same issue and should be combined.
24. Commissioner Robbins stated one is a' landscape requirement and
the other is a natural retention requirement.
25. Commissioner Tyler noted that Condition #5 of the Specific Plan
is lined out and Condition #6 of the Tract Map is not lined out.
Staff stated both conditions should be left in. Commissioner Tyler
asked why there were new Fire Department conditiOns. Staff
stated the Fire Department determined new ones were needed.
26. Chairman Abels stated he did not like the idea of 1 0 foot setbacks
as this is not what was wanted in La Quinta. He would agree with
the averaging at 20 feet.
27. Commissioner Butler asked the applicant if this was a siting
situation and what the motivating factor was for the ten foot
setback. Mr. Haag stated that in the evolution of the architecture
and the development of the map, the architecture has been driven
by the market. The engineering is trying to keep what the
developer believes is a saleable product within the plan. Very few
of these lots, less than 15, and somewhere between ten and
fifteen percent of the lots require this ten foot setback.
Commissioner Butler asked if these lots were all paired housing.
Mr. Haag stated no, but odd shaped lots on maybe 10-15 lots
need the 10 foot setback. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated that in regard to averaging, it would be difficult to
enforce as the building permits are issued in groups which makes
it hard to determine the average of the entire subdivision; second
you preclude anyone from adding an addition because you would
have to calculate what the addition's setback would be in relation
to the entire subdivision.
28. Commissioner Kirk stated the averaging should be per lot.
Discussion followed regarding averaging and determining the lots
that can have the ten foot setback.
29. Commissioner Tyler stated he is in favor of a curvilinear
development; however, isn't there any alternative to the ten foot
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 10-9-01 .wpd {~
-- Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2001
setback? Mr. Haag stated the developer wants his statement in
the perimeter look and the interior amenities and replicated
architecture.
30. Chairman Abels stated he concurs with the applicant's request as
it is a matter of economics.
31. There being no fUrther discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-125, recommending approval of Specific Plan
2000-048, Amendment # 1, subject to the findings and Conditions
of Approval as amended:
a. Condition #5.A. 1 .: Remove the strike out.
b. Condition #48: Change to read, "retention basins over
20,000 square feet."
c. Condition #57: Rear yard setbacks for houses and guest
houses not backing up to open spaces, shall not be less
- than 10 feet for 22 of the lots with those specific lots to be
determined prior to the City Council public hearing and the
remainder shall have 20 foot rear yard setbacks.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Abels.
NOES: Commissioner Kirk and Robbins. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
32. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-1 26, recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map 29858 Amendment #2, subject
to the findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted/amended:
a. Condition # 49: Change to read, "retention basins over
20,000 square feet."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
__ B. Conditional Use Permit 2001-063; a request of Sprint PCS for approval
of the installation of a 68 foot high Wireless antenna camouflaged as a
Palm Tree (Monopalm prototype design) and related ground-mounted
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 10-9-01 .wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2001
equipment for cellular telephone service within a self-storage facility on
3.77 acres located at 46-600 Adams Street, Storage USA.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if this tower was totally enclosed within
the project and asked why the project was required to have two
parking spaces. Staff stated it was within the storage facility and
the parking spaces were required by the Zoning Code. The parking
spaces within the Storage facility are for RV rental parking spaces.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked the location of the other two approved
sites. Staff stated the last one approved was AT&T at the
Imperial Irrigation District facility. Commissioner Kirk asked if it
had been determined to be legally possible to have multiple tenants
on a tower. Staff stated it was legal and a condition had been
added on to the AT&T tower. Commissioner Kirk asked if this
applicant had been asked to have multiple tenants on this tower.
Staff stated the applicant would have to address this as it would
have to be ten feet higher to accommodate another user.
4. Commissioner Robbins stated his only concern was the
proliferation of the monopalms throughout the City.
5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Ms. Linda Nobia, representing Telecom Wireless
Solutions sole consultants to Sprint PCS, gave a presentation on
the project. In regard to the antennas she stated this tower will
serve only La Quinta.
6. Commissioner Kirk asked the radius of the service area and if it
could accept other applicants. Ms. Nobia stated yes, but it would
not get as good a coverage. They would have to expand the lease
area for additional equipment. They would be willing to accept a
condition requiring it as long as they have the lease area to do this.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked if all the proposed telecommunication
facilities meet the current standards set by the FCC. Ms. Nobia
stated yes.
8. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC10-9-01 .wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2001
this project. There being no further discussion, the public
participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for
Commission discussion.
9. Commissioner Tyler questioned why it should be condition to have
the parking spaces.
10. Commissioner Kirk asked how the City could enforce a
requirement to have an additional tenant on the tower. City
Attorney Kathy Jensen stated that if they consent to the
condition, it will be a lease situation and could be difficult to
enforce.
11. Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant how they would enforce
this. Mr. Don Williams, Telecom Wireless Solutions, stated they
are getting ready to construct a co-location facility and could also
do the same at this location. Most carriers would rather co-locate
than do their own pole as it is cheaper. They do need a vertical
separation between the two facilities and this can be a problem.
In regard to landscaping and parking spaces, they are happy with
whatever the City decides. They do have an employee who
checks the poles each month, but this does not require a parking
space. They are happy to plant the trees, but need help as to
where to put them as it is an entirely paved area. Their leased
area is not big enough to put the pole and two trees.
12. Commissioner Butler stated he would want the palm trees next to
the pole. Discussion followed as to possible planting alternatives.
13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-127, approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-
063, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval as
amended:
a. Condition//8: Add, "Trees shall be maintained and replaced
if they die."
b. Condition 9: Deleted and replaced with a requirement for a
,_ multiple antenna.
The Resolution shall be modified to add a new finding that the
required parking spaces as required by the Zoning Code are not
needed as the parking spaces provided within the Storage facility
are sufficient and additional parking is not needed.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 10-9-01 .wpd ~)
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2001
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:30 p.m. ane reconvened at 8:37 p.m.
C. Village Use Permit 2001-010; a request of Edwin G. Cosek (Andrew's
Bar and Grill) for review of exterior remodeling plans for an existing one
story commercial building (formerly Chez Moniques) on 0.17 acres to
include outdoor patio dining, landscaping, signs and vehicle parking areas
located at 78-121 Avenida La Fonda.
1. Commissioner Kirk excused himself due to a possible conflict of
interest and left the dias.
2. 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.
3. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if the old sign would be removed. Staff
stated yes. Commissioner Tyler asked about the lack of parking.
Staff stated parking would be available on the street and on site.
Commissioner Tyler asked about the 25 feet on the west side of
the building. Staff stated the area is proposed to be landscaped
and the parking capacity can be addressed by the applicant.
4. Commissioner Butler stated he was concerned that with the
restaurant to the west of this project there could be a parking
problem. Staff stated they thought the parking was sufficient.
5. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. John Calgerious, representing the applicant,
gave a presentation on the request and stated the seating capacity
of the restaurant is 82 and is anticipate to be open within ten
weeks.
6. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC10-9-01 .wpd ].0
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2001
There being no questions of the applicant, Chairman Abels asked
if anyone else would like to speak regarding this project. There
being no further discussion, the public participation portion of the
hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion.
7. Commissioner Robbins stated he is in favor of the project as it
should be an addition to the Village.
8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-128, recommending approval of Village Use
Permit 2001-010, subject to the findings and Conditions of
Approval as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman
Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk.
ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioner Kirk rejoined the Commission.
D. Village Use Permit 2001-012; a request of Santa Rosa Plaza, LLC for
review of 1 8 Casitas buildings, each containing eight units, for a total of
144 units on a portion of the Santa Rosa Plaza Specific Plan property
located on the north side of Calle Tampico, between Desert club Drive
and Avenida Bermudas.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins asked for clarification as to why all four
sides of the elevation were not included. Staff stated the two
fronts and two sides are the same.
3. Commissioner Tyler stated the emergency exit should be shown
on the plans. Staff noted this is called out on the Specific Plan.
4. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Daniel Brown, representing the applicant, gave
a presentation on the request.
5. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Commission Kirk asked if the applicant concurred with the
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PClO-9-01 .wpd ] ]
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2001
conditions. Mr. Brown stated he did and explained the green area
shown on the plan shows how they would like to have the site
look, even if it is more than 25 percent turf. Commissioner Kirk
asked what the use of pavilion would be when it is proposed for
the middle of the parking lot. Ms. Bridget Meyers, representing
the applicant, stated they have been discussing this with several
landscape architects. The vision is to use it for outdoor
entertainment or exhibits for the pedestrian usage. Commissioner
Kirk asked if Embassy Suites has ever marketed the casitas units
without a hotel attached. Mr. Brown stated they would be
constructed at the same time so it would not be an issue. They
will be individually owned.
6. Commissioner Tyler stated he was concerned that the people who
own the casitas units would be subject to the construction noise
of the hotel. Mr. Brown stated they are planning to build the two
at the same time so it would not be an issue.
7. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding
this project. There being no further discussion, the public
participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for
Commission discussion.
8. Commissioner Robbins stated his only concern is the applicant's
request for more turf and asked if the Specific Plan was
conditioned to a set amount of turf. Staff stated the condition
was added by staff at the Architectural and Landscaping Review
Committee meeting. The original Specific Plan requires it to meet
the Landscape Ordinance. The applicant is requesting the
elimination of Condition #4. Commissioner Robbins stated he
would recommend reducing the evaporation ratio from 8 to 6 and
let them do what they want with a certain amount of water.
Discussion followed regarding the amount of turf and water to be
allowed. Mr. Brown stated he was concerned this would not allow
them to obtain the oasis look they are wanting. Following
discussion it was determined the amount of turf would be limited
to 33 percent.
9. Commissioner Kirk stated he has a problem with the casitas units
resembling apartments rather than a true casitas unit and he would
recommend additional features be added.
10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 10-9-01.wpd ! 2
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2001
Resolution 2001-129, recommending approval of Village Use
Permit 2001-012, subject to the findings and Conditions of
Approval as submitted/amended:
a. Condition//4: A landscaping shall be a maximum of 33%
b. Condition//10: The emergency access on Desert Club Drive
shall be specified on the plans
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Abels. NOES: Commissioner Robbins. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
E. Site Development Permit 2001-714; a request of Madison Development
LLC for review of development plans for one retail building located on the
northwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 111, within Point
Happy Commercial center.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked about the window signs on Washington
Street and if the Commission could prohibit this. Staff stated the
Specific Plan would not allow it.
3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. John Vuksic, representing the applicant, gave a
presentation on the request.
4. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
There being no questions of the applicant, Chairman Abels asked
if anyone else would like to speak regarding this project. There
being no further discussion, the public participation portion of the
hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-130, recommending approval of Site
Development Permit 2001-714, subject to the findings and
Conditions of Approval as recommended,
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
G :\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 10-9-01.wpd ! :~
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2001
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
VII. BusINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2000-671, Amendment //1; a request of Toll
Bros. For review of architectural plans for one new prototype residential
unit to be located within the Norman Golf Course, on the north side of
Airport Boulevard, east of Madison Street.
1. Chairman Abels 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.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. There
being no questions of staff, nor of the applicant, Chairman Abels
closed the public participation.
3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 2001-121
approving Site Development Permit 2000-671 Amendment //1,
subject to the Conditions of Approval as recommended. The
motion carried unanimously.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Staff informed the Commission that the City Council would be
determining if there would be another joint hearing on the General Plan
Update. Staff would notify the Commission of the date.
B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of
September 18, 2001.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Robbins/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held October 9, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:31 p.m. on September
25, 2001.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 10-9-01 .wpd ]4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2001
Respectfully submitted,
15etty/J~'/9'awyer, Executive Secretary
City ~Pl_a Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 10-9-01 .wpd ]$