Loading...
2005 03 22 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA March 22, 2005 , 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 Kirk who asked Commissioner Ladner to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Rick Daniels, Kay Ladner, and Chairman Tom Kirk. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners to excuse Commissioner Quill. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Assistant City Attorr:aey Michael Houston, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Fred Baker, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of the regular meeting of March 8, 2005. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Danielsl Alderson to approve the minutes as submitted. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Site Development Permit 2005-825; a request of Family Heritage Church for consideration of development plans for a classroom building addition to an existing church consisting of two 2,500 square feet facilities, located on the northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Adams Street. 1. Chairman Kirk 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. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked about the two large pine trees on the west side, would they be removed with the development. Staff stated the applicant would need to answer this question. 3. Chairman Daniels asked about the relocation of the trash containers as to whether or not Waste Management had given any input to the location. Staff explained Waste Management was given a copy of the plans and no comments were· received. 4. Commissioner Alderson asked if the new location of the trash containers would be to the north of the building next to the existing wall. Staff stated yes, for aesthetics reasons. 5. Commissioner Ladner asked why they were required to fill a Conditional Use Permit after the fact. Staff stated because at the time of approval for the existing structure, it was not required. With the expansion it is now required. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chris McFadden, representing Family Heritage Church, gave a presentation on the project. He stated there was a concern regarding the condition to participate in the cost of the new retaining wall with the development of the Redevelopment Agency project adjacent to the west of this project. The wall should be phased with the development of Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park (VDMHP) because of the grading issues. They would like to request leaving the backfill as it is and relocate the trash containers at the same time as the addition is being constructed. He went on to explain the grade differences. They are willing to cut down the retaining wall on either side of the proposed trash enclosure to four feet and slope them up and then construct the property line at that point. Across the back of the property, where it ties back into the Fire Station, they concur with. staff's recommendation. They are requesting the conditions be changed to required they construct the 142 linear feet of retaining wall only at this time. The VDMHP project is still evaluating their grading issues. They also have a concern with the materials requested. They would prefer a slump block stone to remain compatible with the existing building. On Conditions 43-45 they would like to work with staff to reach a resolve and create Phases I, 2, and 3 G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc I I I 2 I I I Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 for the construction of the site. Lastly, they would like to request a two year approval to give them time to raise the funds necessary to construct the addition. 7. Commissioner Daniels asked about the relocation of the other storage containers. Mr. McFadden stated they would be moved to the rear as well. 8. Commissioner Alderson asked if the existing block wall was on the Church's property and if they would be cut down and then slope it up to the height of the Park. Mr. McFadden stated they would reduce the height to four feet and slope it up to the VDMHP property line after it is graded. 9. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, the public participation was closed and open for Commission discussion. 10. Commissioner Ladner stated she has no issue with the slump stone transition and agrees with the two year approval. She would like to hear staff's concerns on the sloping. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that in regard to Condition #44, a church activity will usually have a screen wall. The second sentence of the condition states, the need to work together as neither the applicant, nor the City knows what. the final grades will be. Staff is requesting the applicant write a letter to the City requesting the City share in the cost of the wall once this has been determined. Commissioner Ladner asked the timing of the Agency's project. Staff indicated they were just starting the process. 11. Chairman Kirk reopened the public hearing. Mr.· McFadden explained that the cost to build the retaining wall is an extreme hardship on the Church. The cost to reconstruct the wall could break this project for the Church. The Church has never requested any reimbursement from anyone when they first constructed the retaining wall. 12. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 13. Commissioner Daniels stated he does believe the condition to share in the cost of the wall is fair. I 14. Commissioner Alderson stated there seems to be some uncertainty as to the height of the wall and location of the wall. He suggested the wall be under the discretion of staff to determine the height, when the grades are known. 15. Chairman Kirk suggested that if the City pays for half of the construction costs for the wall at some point in the future, this property owner should be required to pay for his portion, but if the City does not act, then this project should be approved with their proposed wall plan. 16. City Attorney Kathy Jenson suggested the time frame be more than a year. Chairman Kirk asked if the City could make a decision on whether or not they will participate in the construction of the wqll relatively soon. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the Church should be required to build the wall adjacent to the addition and staff would evaluate and work with them on the other areas. Chairman Kirk stated yes, if the City agrees to participate in the cost of the wall at some date certain. I 17. Commissioner Daniels stated he is not certain 12 months is adequate, he suggested it be tied to the applicant's request for a two year approval. 18. Chairman Kirk stated his concern is the timing. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the selection process for the Agency project adjacent to this site should be in place within the year. The challenge is that if the Church is told they must come up with 50% of the cost of the wall and then they inform the City they do not have the 50%, it is difficult to enforce payment out of a fund raising project. If it is deferred you run t~e risk of trying to enforce the requirement. The way the conditiçm is written, the Church is required. to write a letter to the Council/Agency about the cost sharing issue so they know what they need to do to put it into the building fund raising program. Otherwise it is difficult to enforce. 19. Commissioner Daniels asked if the compromise could be to leave I the condition as written with the invitation to seek cost sharing G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 4 I I I Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 from the City and if there is a problem this applicant shall be notified they can return to this Commission to be relieved of this condition. He wants it on the record that there was discussion and it was unclear as to the timing of the wall and that this applicant can come back. If the cost sharing does not come back, they can come back and ask for relief of the condition. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that if discussion with the adjacent property owners is not fruitful, the Church can come back to the Commission as a Business Item and let the Commission decide at that time on the condition. He is confident there will be a reasonable decision between the two property owners. 20. Chairman Kirk stated he believes it is disproportionate to require the Church to have 100% of the cost of the wall. ·21. It was moved by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-011 approving Conditional Use Permit 2005-091, as recommended by staff. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. 22. It was moved by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-012 approving Site Development Permit 2005-825, as recommended by staff and as follows: a. New condition: This approval shall expire in two years from the date of approval of this Site Deve,lopment Permit b. Condition 45: The cost to construct the wall shall be a shared cost between the two properties. The cost shall be negotiated between the City/Agency and the applicant. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of constructing that portion of the retaining wall adjacent to the proposed building addition. c. Slump stone material for the wall is acceptable. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioner~ Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. . G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes March 22" 2005 Chairman Kirk recessed the meeting at 7:45, due to technical difficulties and reconvened at 7:50 p.m. I B. Site Development Permit 2005-821; a request of Joe Riso/Stewart Woodard for consideration of development plans for a two story 29,985 square foot auto dealership facility, located on the southeast corner of Avenue 47 and Adams Street. 1 . Chairman Kirk 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 Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Alderson asked if the elevation presented showed the changes as requested by the Arch"ecture and Landscape Review Committee. Staff stated not all. 3. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was berming in the landscape buffer. Staff stated the proposed berming would be in addition to what is existing. There would be an opportunity for additional berming. I 4. Commissioner Alderson stated there is slight berming now. 5. Commissioner Daniels asked if the design criteria contained in the Specific Plan was the same as what was approved in 1998. He also asked what height was allowed in this district. Staff stated the height is governed by the Specific Plan; 40 feet is allowed. The design of this building is slightly different. 6. Commissioner Ladner asked if this design was different from the original approvals. Staff stated the difference between the original three auto dealerships on Highway 111 and this one is the lighting and the requirements to screen the lights. The slight change in the architecture is the pitch on the roof on Adams Street. Com,missioner Ladner asked about the loudspeakers. Staff stated they are not allowed. 7. Commissioner Daniels asked the height of the parking lot lights as dictated by the Specific Plan. He also asked what was across the street on Adams Street. Staff stated directly across Adams Street I G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 6 I I I Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 is the senior project, Hadley Villas which is accessed off Avenue 47. South of Hadley Villas is Lake La Quinta properties. He the!1 displayed an aerial of the site. 8. Commissioner Alderson asked the use of the site south of the proposed Mazda dealership. Staff stated it is yet to be determined. 9. Commissioner Ladner asked the about the light fixtures. Staff stated they are required to have two, not four boxes. Staff indicated the light locations on the site plan and clarified the fixtures are required to be shaded straight down. 10. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Stewart Woodard, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. His concerns were the restriction on the lower band that will go around the building to break up the building at two feet and a requirement for a bus turnout. 11. Chairman Kirk asked if the bus turnouts could be deleted. Staff stated it is a boiler plate condition and no comments have been received from Sunline Transit requesting the turnout. It could be deleted. 12. Commissioner Alderson asked if the green color was a trademark. Mr. Woodard stated it is part of their corporate color scheme. 13. Chairman Kirk asked for legal counsel's determination as he did not believe color was under corporate control. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated the color is not part of the trademark. 14. Commissioner Alderson asked why the Sheriff's Department approval was included. Staff stated all applications are approved and reviewed by the Sheriff's Department. They did not request any additional conditions. Commissioner Alderson asked for clarification on the central sales area where there are the high windows. One appears to be an office that will allow the owner to look down into the sales area. The second window appears to be a storage room. Mr. Woodard stated the office that appears to be for parts storage will be future office space. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 15. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Dutch Dilshaver, 78-839 Dulce Del Mar stated that when this approval was first presented, there was to be a three-foot berm with a six foot wall on the east side. The grading was to be a total of nine feet from the finish grade to the top of the wall to keep the noise down and for privacy as well as all service bays were to open to the east to keep the noise down. All loud speakers were to face east or north. The light standard height was to be such that it would not shine into the neighboring residential areas. They are to face downward. On the additional parcels the buildings were to be set back and facing east. I 16. Mr. Ben Rusker, 47-675 Via Montessa, HOA president, stated he would like to state that they are opposed to the project, but do understand this was approved several years ago. They. do appreciate the access driveways being placed on the interior of the project. They would like the Chairman and Commission to understand there are 288 homes as well as the Hadley Villas residents that currently hear loudspeakers and struggle with the lighting. Now with this project more lights will be added. Their I homes should not be subject to this lighting. They are subject to the lighting and noise of the existing auto dealerships and ask for the Commission's protection on this project. The landscaping is another big problem. A wall was to be constructed" to help alleviate some of these problems. 17. Susan Albert, 47-910 Via Florence, stated her home is located cattycorner to the project. She is going to look at a block wall and a two story building facing her house with nine foot lights, 14 feet above the wall. She will be looking up into the lights. The Dodge dealership is further away and they have the glare from those lights. The original approval for the automall was to be nine feet below the elevation. There were no homes built at this site when these dealerships were approved. In addition, the block wall should be covered with trees. 18. Sandy Lower, 47-225 Via Vintina, stated the lighting from all the commercial on Avenue 47 and the dealerships is horrible. She suggested the yellow lighting be considered with lower poles. This is invasive to the whole community. The plantings along I Adams Street are low as well as the height of the berm. This should have more trees and landscaping. There should be more G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 8 I I I Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 protection for the property owners from the Circuit City, Stein Mart, Target in the rear to soften the hardscape by adding additional landscaping. 19. Mr. Stewart Woodard stated that when they started on this project they followed the Specific Plan to e"very detail. As to the landscaping, there is landscaping and they have met the requirements. As to the lighting, it too meets the Specific Plan conditions. These dealerships were approved before the homeowners and it should be noted. 20. Commissioner Ladner asked about the loudspeakers. Mr. Woodard stated they will have them. A time frame could be placed on their use. They do need to be able to contact their workers. 21 . Commissioner Daniels stated he thought staff indicated they would not have any loud speakers. Staff stated they were not allowed loud speakers, but were allowed to use radios and the lights were to be lowered at a certain time. Mr. Woodard stated they will meet whatever requirements are required by the Specific Plan. 22. Commissioner Ladner asked what time the lights go off. Staff stated they are to be turned down at 10:00 p.m. but need to retain security lighting. 23. Commissioner Daniels stated the auto dealerships were previously approved, but the Commission does need to address the concerns of the residents. The loudspeakers need to be omitted. Is there a way to address the lighting? Is it possible to retain protection of the cars, and reduce the number of lights and can the height be reduced. Mr. Woodard stated the lower you go, the more lights are required to get the amount of light needed. Commissioner Daniels asked if additional trees could be added near every light standard to soften the direct light. Mr. Woodard stated this is a possibility they could add more trees. Commissioner Daniels asked if the design of the box shield could be extended down further on the sides of the box to shield the light on the west side. Mr. Woodard stated they will still be seen. Commissioner Daniels stated he understands but he was trying to find a way to soften the glare and if there is a product that could extend down to cut back the radiation of the light. Mr. Woodard stated he does not believe this will help, but they are willing to explore the possibility. G:\ WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the applicant could look at the south property line where it is all employee parking and see if the standards could be reduced to 18 feet and reduced in wattage to 250 watt single fixtures with the right type of lenses which would be the same as most shopping centers. You would still see them but it would be less intense, lower and the trees would help to shade the lights. There are several different types of boxes with shields and prisms to help on the southwest corner up to the edge of the south side of the building (essentially the south and west side of the building) reducing the lighting. Change the trees that are not deciduous. The two-story portion is up front and more than 250 feet from the corner. A condition should be added that no loudspeaker should be allowed. Heavy landscaping with trees at the southwest corner to shield the lights should be added. Discussion followed as to what activities took place in the different bays. Mr. Woodard asked if the lights are reduced on the south side, they have no objection. There will be another dealership to the south of them at some time in the future. If this is required of them, they want it required on the future parcel at the same time. Staff reminded the Commission that if the condition for a six-foot block is to be required, the wall needs to be added. 24. Chairman Kirk reopened the public Hearing. Ms. Albert stated she thought the elevation was to be nine feet below grade. Staff stated they were unaware of any such condition. Chairman Kirk stated there was a grade differential due to the height at Highway 111 and this location. 25. Commissioner Daniels stated it was to be a three-foot berm and then a six-foot wall. 26. Mr. Dilshaver asked what the finish grade was now. Staff explained the grade differentials. Chairman Kirk stated there appears to be some research that needs to be done on the original approval. I I 27. There being none, the public participation was closed and open for Commission discussion. 28. Commissioner Alderson asked if the photometric study would have I disclosed the number needed. Staff stated yes because of the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 10 I Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 Dark Sky Ordinance. There is zero light on the property line. Commissioner Daniels asked about the 24 light pole to match the existing and they are suggesting going to a lower light. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated normally regulations are written as maximums not minimums to allow the Commission some discretion to fit into the neighborhood. He does' believe the side of the boxes being extended does affect the sight "line drastically. 29. Commissioner Daniels stated the challenge is to fix this with some of the concerns raised. 30. Chairman Kirk asked that staff look into the Code violation on the other dealerships in regard to the loud speakers. 31 . It was moved by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-013 approving Site Development Permit 2004-821, as recommended by staff. I a. b. c. d. e. f. I No loud speakers shall be allowed. The lighting shall be reduced down to a security level. The lights shall be redirected so the light is directed internal to the property. Wattage on the south side and the Adams Street side shall " be reduced in wattage. Non deciduous trees shall be planted between the outside of every light standard along Adams Street. A six-foot high block wall be required. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. C. Site Development Permit 2005-824, Conditional Use Permit 2005-090, and Sign Application 2005-876; a request of Nasland Engineering, La Quinta Redevelopment Agency, and Stamko Development Co. for consideration of development plans for a 136,000 square foot retail store and gas station on a 13.72 acre site, located at the southwest corne,r of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road; 1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Doug Evans and G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 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 Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked what is located on the south side of the site. Staff stated it is the Agency's affordable housing project. Commissioner Daniels asked if the light standards needed to be 42 feet. Staff stated they have been conditioned to lower them. 3. Commissioner Alderson asked about the traffic study in regard to the turning movements by having a left in on the south driveway. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated it conflicts with the left turn that must be provided for the buses. Commissioner Alderson' asked about the primary entrance on Highway 111 as it does not lend itself to a signal. Staff stated the road would be extended to the east and the buses would have to come out on the new street. He showed the turning movement and alignment on the site plan. 4. Chairman Kirk asked about Parcel 2 as to how it would be accessed. Staff stated they will have an access on Dune Palms Road and in front of the existing entry. The gas station has an access throÜgh as well as a corridor with the existing commercial. Chairman Kirk asked about the access between PetSmart and the gas station. He asked about the island that appears to be standing alone. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated that as both property owners work on design there needs to be some work with the existing property owner as it relates to Parcel 1. Dialog has and is taking place to screen the area. Chairman Kirk asked about the sign area calculations. Principal Planner Fred Barker stated there has been a revision since the staff report was written. He went on to compare the sign calculations between the "Sam's Club" and "Super Wal-Mart". Community Development Director Doug Evans further explained how they reached the total sign figures. Chairman Kirk asked if this complies with the Sign Program. Staff explained this is the proposed Sign Program. Discussion followed on the calculations. ' 5. Commissioner Alderson asked about the storm drain retention tank. Staff stated this is an alternate system. They are hoping to go to a surface retention with the other part of the center. Until that is accomplished, they are required to have the tank. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc I I I 12 I I I Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 6. Commissioner Daniels' asked staff to explain flipping the gas station. Staff explained how the stacking would be changed to keep the cars out of the drive aisle if the gas station pumps were relocated. 7. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Donavon Collier, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project and introduced the project team. 8. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, it was open for Commission discussion. 9. Commissioner Alderson asked about the bond being in place, until the signal is installed; if in the future, this project does not require a signal, how long will the money be kept. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated five years. Staff expects the turning movements on Dune Palms Road will service this site. The signal is only in the event there is a problem. The signal would require a realignment with the Desert Sands Unified School District bus entrance, so it probably will not happen. 10. Chairman Kirk commended the applicant on ~he architecture design. He does not support the sign program as this property owner paid less for the land and should not be allowed a benefit because it is not seen from Highway 111. He is also concerned about the sea of asphalt. He would prefer to see a reduction in parking spaces, additional landscaping and pedestrian aisles. 11 . Commissioner Ladner stated she has no objection to the sign and she is not inclined to reduce the parking as it will have a high customer number. 12. Commissioner Alderson stated both parking lots are combined and with this site having 90 additional parking spaces, he would agree with additional trees and pedestrian walkways. 13. Chairman Kirk stated that if the parking was reduced by 20 parking spaces, it could be enhanced with trees. Mr. Mike Birkland, landscape architect, stated they believe the number is needed. The parking lot will be screened from Highway 111, but they would entertain using bigger landscape islands. He does not G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 13 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005' believe the pedestrian walkway would work well on this site. Community Development Director Doug Evans asked that Condition 47 .B.1 be sunset at five years. I 14. There being. no further public comment or discussion, the public hearing was closed. 15. It was moved by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-015 approving Conditional Use Permit 2005-090, as recommended by staff. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. 16. It was moved by Commissioners Kirk/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-014, approving Site Development Permit 2005-824, as recommended by staff and as follows: c. There shall be a reduction in parking stalls by 30. Additional landscaping shall be installed on the landscape islands to soften hardscape. The landscape islands shall not be zeroscape, but contain lush landscaping. The location of the gas station shall be flipped. I a. b. d. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, and Chairman Kirk. NOES.: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. 17. It was moved by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2005-016 approving Sign Application 2005-876, as recommended by staff. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. I G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 14 I Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on April 12, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. on March 22, 2005. Respectfully submitted, v/fi ---:J>1~ ty ~wy:r~ Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California I I G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 15 I Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2005 VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Ladner to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on April 12, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. on March 22,2005. Respectfully submitted, I I G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-22-05.doc 15