►
From YouTube: Planning Commission | May 10, 2017
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
D
Chair
the
agenda
was
posted
on
Thursday
may.
The
4th
this
meeting
has
been
noticed
and
posted
in
accordance
with
state
law.
Mr.
chair,
if
I
can
just
take
a
couple
of
minutes
to
the
members
of
the
public,
we
are
here
at
the
convention
center,
while
the
council
chambers
are
being
renovated.
This
isn't
exactly
the
most
perfect
setup
for
us.
We
do
have
microphones
here.
I
need
to
remind
the
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
to
make
sure
that
your
mic
is
on.
D
A
Just
a
big
campout
acceptance
of
the
agenda
are
there
any
items
on
the
consent
calendar
that
anyone
wants
bold
hearing?
None.
We
do
have
item
2d,
which
the
dream
hotel,
which
unfortunately
is
going
to
need
to
be
continued
today,
due
to
lack
of
a
quorum
of
members
that
can
vote,
we
have
three
members
absent
and
I
live
within
two
blocks
of
the
hotel
and
thereby
have
to
recuse
myself.
So
we
have
a
problem
where
we
have
we
have.
A
We
do
not
have
three
votes
or
four
votes
that
is,
have
a
quorum
to
discuss
the
item,
so
I
think
we
will
have
when
we
get.
To
that
point,
we
will
move
to
continue.
I
would
ask
that
if
anyone
wants
to
testify
on
the
dream
hotel,
they
do
so
under
the
public
comment.
Section,
that's
upcoming
and
actually
some
people
out
there
with
the
dream,
hotel
books,
so
I
suspect,
have
some
comments.
A
That
brings
us
to
public
comments.
This
time
has
been
set
aside
for
the
members
of
public
to
address
the
Commission
on
the
consent,
calendar
and
any
other
agenda
items
and
items
of
general
interest
within
the
subject
matter
of
the
Commission.
Please
note
landing:
commissioners
is,
is
prohibited
from
taking
action
items
not
listed
on
the
posted
agenda.
Three
minutes
is
allowed
for
each
speaker
and
if,
for
the
fort
public
hearing
items,
that's
items
to
A
to
B,
to
C
and
to
G,
there
will
also
be
an
opportunity
to
speak
at
those
at
that
time.
A
F
Don't
quite
reach
there,
so
today
you
have
the
sign
ordinance
on
the
agenda,
and
so
I
just
want
to
speak
right
now,
rather
than
waiting
just
in
case
it
didn't
make
it
or
some
odd
thing
happen.
So
you're,
a
very
fine
planning
director
Flynn,
has
assured
me
that
what
is
contained
in
here
is
the
same
thing
from
last
time,
because
I
must
admit:
I
am
NOT
a
planning
person
or
anything
like
that.
So
I
did
go
over
the
other
one
and
I
had
some
advice
given
on
that.
F
So
provided
that
it
is
the
same
document
that
I
saw
before
I
just
wanted
to
tell
you
that
from
a
Main
Street
perspective
and
we've
talked
about
it,
probably
even
more
than
you
have.
We
feel
that
some
fine
compromises
have
been
made
in
this
and
we
accept
it
as
it
is
written
and
based
on
the
fact
that
we've
been
talking
about
stuff
like
this.
For
honestly
as
many
years,
probably
as
I've
had
my
business
30
years
and.
B
F
G
Afternoon
to
the
Planning,
Commission
and
I
do
want
to
add,
sometimes
I
come
in
and
I'm
pretty
emotional
and
pretty
rough
on
you
and
I
want
to
apologize
when
any
of
that
is
unfair
and
that's
always
a
possibility.
So
I
just
want
to
start
by
saying
that
to
you,
it's
a
very
tough
time
right
now
for
the
city
from
some
of
the
issues,
we're
going
through
and
I
know
we're
very
intense
about
those.
G
G
There
was
a
2015
project
that
was
approved
that
development
went
up
to
four
storeys,
plus
an
event
center.
On
top,
there
were
some
proposed
parking
deficiencies
that
were
litigated.
A
court
decision
came
down,
and
last
week
the
City
Council
actually
rescinded
the
PDD
and
rescinded
the
approvals
on
750
lofts.
The
question
that
I'm
bringing
back
now
for
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
Historic
Site
Preservation
Committee,
is
to
what
extent
and
I'm
glad
that
mr.
Fogg
is
here.
G
I
am
unclear
on
how
this
is
going
to
affect
the
reprocessing
of
this
and
whether
this
vacates
the
entire
approval,
which
it
appeared
to
whether
that
reinitiate
s--
another
review
by
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
Historic
Site
Preservation
Board
I,
went
in
and
talked
to
one
of
the
City
Council
members.
This
morning,
I
said:
look
at
the
PDD
ordinance.
Ninety
four
point:
zero:
three:
whether
when
a
project
comes
back
with
any
kind
of
modification,
whether
that's
a
court
order
or
not.
G
It's
an
issue
under
ninety
four
point:
zero:
three:
it's
either
a
major
or
a
minor
modification,
but
regardless
of
what
it
is,
it
comes
back
under
ninety
four
point:
zero
three
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
other
question
is
whether
it
would
go
back
to
the
historic
site,
Preservation
Board.
That
will
depend
on
whether
that
review
comes
back
to
you.
If
it
does
and
I
don't
think
the
City
Council
has
determined
that.
G
Yet
if
it
comes
back
to
you
de
novo
with
a
new
application,
then
everything
is
up
for
review
and
it
would
go
back
to
the
historic
site.
Preservation
Board,
if
it
comes
back
as
a
major
modification
and
the
elimination
of
the
activity
on
the
fourth
floor,
probably
would
be
designated
a
major
modification
that
also
brings
up
that
determination.
So
I
wanted
to
bring
that
to
your
attention
today.
Thank
you
very
much.
D
A
D
E
A
B
D
A
Okay.
Next
item
is
the
consent.
Calendar
I'll
entertain
a
motion
to
approve
the
consent,
calendar
so
moved.
Ok,
it's
been
moved
by
Commissioner,
Warmack
and
seconded
by
Commissioner
Middleton
to
approve
the
consent
calendar.
Is
there
any
discussion
all
right,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
all
those
opposed
or
do
I
need
to
do
a
roll
call,
'evil
them.
Okay,
right
next.
A
D
Chair
and
members
of
the
Commission.
Thank
you
very
much.
This
item
was
scheduled
for
your
last
meeting,
the
April
26th
agenda.
Unfortunately,
we
didn't
have
time
to
consider
it.
We
appreciate
those
who
wanted
to
attend
and
sat
through
that
entire
meeting,
and
unfortunately
we
did
not
quite
get
there,
and
so
the
ordinance
that
you
have
before
you
today
is
the
same
one
that
was
on
the
agenda
at
that
point
in
time
have
been
no
changes
to
that.
Let
me
just
go
through
the
changes
to
the
ordinate
self
why
we
are
doing
this.
D
The
main
reason
why
the
city
is
going
into
its
sign
ordinance
is
because
of
a
recent
Supreme
Court
case.
This
was
relative
to
a
city
in
the
state
of
Arizona
and
their
temporary
signs
that
they
had,
and
essentially
what
the
Supreme
Court
decision
did
was
it
ruled
out
any
signage
regulations
based
on
content.
When
we
look
at
things
such
as
content
based
signs,
those
are
signs
that
are
based
on
a
specific
message.
D
Examples
of
that
would
be
real
estate
signs,
political
signs,
Grand,
Openings
signs,
etc,
and
so
that
is
the
main
reason
why
we
are
making
changes
to
the
sign
ordinance.
There
are
also
other
changes
that
we
are
considering
at
this
time.
One
of
those
is
changes
to
our
portable
sign
ordinance.
As
you're
aware,
we've
had
portable
signs
in
existence
in
the
city,
since
approximately
2010
it
did
have
a
sunset
ordinance
in
it
of
October
of
2016.
D
The
City
Council
subcommittee
that
has
been
working
on
the
changes
to
the
sign
ordinance
have
looked
at
a
number
of
proposed
changes
to
our
regulations
for
portable
signs,
and
so
that
will
be
one
of
the
things
that
we
discussed
today
as
part
of
the
changes
in
the
ordinance
with
that,
let
me
go
ahead
and
go
through
the
significant
changes
that
are
proposed
to
the
ordinance.
First
of
all,
let
me
talk
about
temporary
signs.
D
So
now
that
we're
considering
all
of
these
types
of
signs
to
be
the
same,
we
distinguish
by
zoning
district,
which
is
in
accordance
with
what
the
Supreme
Court
would
allow
us
to
do
so
for
temporary
signs
in
single-family
zones.
We
have
two
options:
number
one
you're
allowed
to
have
two
eight
square
foot
freestanding
signs
or
116
square
foot,
freestanding
sign
and
one
four
square
foot
window
sign.
D
So,
for
example,
if
you
have
a
real
estate
sign,
you're
selling
your
home,
you
could
have
up
to
eight
square
feet
for
a
real
estate
sign,
and
let's
say
this
is
during
an
election
period.
You'd
also
be
allowed
to
have
an
election
sign
in
your
yard,
and
so
that
gives
you
some
degree
of
flexibility
in
terms
of
what
you
choose
to
do.
It's
the
square
footage,
a
number
that's
regulated,
rather
than
the
content
for
temporary
signs
in
commercial
and
industrial
districts.
We
don't
identify
a
number
or
a
maximum
square
footage.
D
However,
it's
based
on
the
maximum
square
footage
that
would
currently
be
allowed
we're
not
making
any
changes
to
the
maximum
square
footage
permitted
in
commercial
districts.
To
give
you
an
example:
if
a
commercial
property
is
allowed
to
have
up
to
75
square
feet
of
sign
area
and
their
existing
permanent
signage
equals
50
square
feet,
then
they
could
have
up
to
25
square
feet
in
temporary
signs
on
the
property.
Again,
we
don't
regulate
the
number,
it's
the
square
footage
that
would
be
regulated,
and
so
that's
how
temporary
signs
would
be
regulated
in
commercial
districts.
D
D
Again,
it's
just
the
maximum
number
that
regulates
there's
a
lesser
square
footage
allowed
in
those
zones.
So,
for
example,
if
the
permanent
signage
is
25
square
feet,
you're
allowed
up
to
a
maximum
of
square
feet,
then
only
15
square
feet
would
be
allowed
for
temporary
signage,
and
so
those
are
the
distinctions
for
temporary
signs
in
our
single-family
districts,
our
multi-family
districts
and
our
commercial
districts
associated
with
that
there
are
a
number
of
changes
relative
to
other
types
of
signs
that
are
content-based.
For
example,
we
used
to
have
a
sign
type
called
restaurant
menu
boards.
D
Again
because
that's
content,
we
have
to
take
that
out
of
the
ordinance
we're
now
classifying
those
as
service
signs,
which
is
a
type
of
sign,
that's
already
permitted
in
commercial
zoning
districts,
and
so
the
restaurant
menu
boards
will
now
be
called
service
signs
and
permitted
under
that
section
of
the
code,
and
then
there
are
things
such
as
theater
attraction
boards
or
theater
marquees.
Those
are
still
allowed.
It's
just
we're
classifying
those
now
as
a
wall
sign
or
a
monument
sign
and
giving
them
the
maximum
square
footage
there.
D
Let
me
talk
about
portable
open
signs.
Currently,
our
regulations
only
allow
the
portable
signs
in
the
downtown
and
uptown
areas.
What
is
being
proposed.
One
of
the
significant
changes
is
that
would
now
allow
the
portable
signs
in
all
of
our
commercial
and
industrial
districts,
and
so
we're
no
longer
distinguishing
certain
areas
that
are
allowed
to
have
them
we're,
allowing
that
to
apply
equally
in
all
commercial
districts.
You
may
recall
that
there
had
been
requests
from
those
in
the
sunny
dunes
area
who
also
wanted
the
portable
open
signs.
D
This
would
address
that
and
again
it
does
give
that
opportunity
in
other
commercial
districts
in
terms
of
the
sign
regulations,
the
size
of
the
signs,
there's
no
change
as
to
what
is
being
proposed
there,
nor
to
the
number
it's
still
one
per
tenant
with
street
frontage
of
frontage
on
a
parking
lot.
There
is
one
significant
change
in
terms
of
the
design
standards
and
what
the
proposed
ordinance
does
is.
It
requires
the
Planning
Director
to
establish
aesthetic
criteria
for
the
signs.
D
What
I
would
propose
that
we
do
under
that
language
is
put
together,
a
member
of
the
AAC
and
the
on
Commission
to
work
with
stakeholder
groups,
including
our
Main
Street
group,
to
come
up
with
aesthetic
standards
that
all
signs
would
need
to
adhere
to,
and
so
that's
what
I
would
propose
to
do
under
that?
The
vice-chair
you
had
a
question
are.
D
D
D
D
Is
the
language
in
the
code?
It
says
that
the
sign
needs
to
be
placed
between
the
primary
entrance
of
the
building
and
the
street
or
parking
lot
that
it
fronts
upon,
and
so
that's
the
only
language
that
we
have
there
relative
to
that.
But
again
it
needs
to
be
directly
in
front
of
the
customer
entry.
One
of
the
things
that
I
need
to
talk
about
is
placement
of
those
signs.
D
If
they
are
in
the
public
sidewalk,
it
needs
to
be
a
minimum
of
3
feet
from
the
curb,
and
then
we
also
need
to
maintain
a
minimum
of
48
inches
for
a
DA
access
on
the
public
sidewalk.
Now
there
may
be
certain
locations
where
that
distance
is
not
possible,
and
so
in
those
instances
a
business
may
not
be
able
to
have
a
portable
sign
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
clear
is
we
do
need
to
meet
the
minimum
clearance
distances
in
order
to
have
those
signs.
Does.
C
I'm
sorry:
well
maybe
this
is
covered
somewhere,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand.
This
is
very
clear
away
that
the
way
these
square
footages
are
our
distributed
per
zoning
area.
But
let's
take
an
example
of
a
an
open
house
sign
for
a
house:
that's
for
sale,
that's
remote
from
the
house
site
I
mean
we've
all
seen
those
we've
all
seen,
directional
signs,
let's
say
to
special
events,
I
think
in
one
of
our
communications
from
the
public.
C
D
D
I'll
try
and
get
through
this
a
little
bit
more
quickly
so
that
you
have
more
than
adequate
time
for
that
one
of
the
things
that
does
change
in
terms
of
the
organization
of
the
sign
ordinance,
although
it
doesn't
change
the
regulations,
the
standards
themselves
in
terms
of
maximum
number
of
signs
or
maximum
square
footage.
We
have
reformatted
the
sign
regulations
into
tables.
D
Currently,
as
the
sign
code
is
organized,
you
have
regulations
in
one
section
of
the
sign
ordinance
and
it's
not
until
20
pages
later
that
you
find
out
that
you're
allowed
something
else
under
the
code.
What
we've
tried
to
do
is
to
organize
all
of
the
regulations
for
our
commercial
standards
into
one
table
all
of
our
regulations
for
our
multifamily
districts
into
one
table.
D
So
that's
one
of
the
things
you
will
notice
is:
the
organization
is
a
little
bit
different
in
that
we've
formatted
it
into
tables,
but
we
haven't
changed
the
regulations
themselves
in
terms
of
the
number
of
signs
permitted,
the
types
of
signs
permitted
or
the
maximum
area.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
was
clear
with
that
I'm
going
to
go
through
each
of
the
sections
of
the
sign
ordinance
just
to
identify
what
the
changes
are
and
I'll
go
through.
This
I'll
try
and
be
quick
about
this.
D
First
of
all,
in
the
definitions
section,
we
have
made
some
changes
in
that
there
were
a
number
of
sign
types
that
weren't
defined
in
our
code.
So
we
have
made
some
changes
there
to
clarify
our
regulations
and
to
help
us
as
we
implement
the
regulations
under
the
section
dealing
with
prohibited
signs.
There
is
language
there
that
does
allow
portable
open
signs
in
the
public
right-of-way.
D
Again,
I've
already
mentioned
the
change
about
menu
boards,
restaurant
menu
boards,
interior,
real
estate
office
signs,
that's
a
content-based
sign,
so
we've
had
to
move
that
to
another
section
of
the
code
that
still
would
be
permitted
attraction
boards,
we've
reclassified,
those
as
wall
or
monument
signs,
and
then
the
portable
sign
regulations
have
been
added
to
our
commercial
districts.
We
still
have
a
separate
section
of
the
code
for
downtown
and
uptown
signage,
because
it's
more
of
a
pedestrian
area.
D
It
has
slightly
different
sign
requirements
again:
we're
not
making
any
changes
to
the
significant
sign
regulations
that
are
there.
We
have
made
the
change
to
the
restaurant
menu
boards
and
then
the
changes
to
the
portable
signs
that
I
have
mentioned
previously
under
the
multifamily
and
hotel
districts,
no
changes
there
special
provisions.
This
is
the
area
that
deals
with
special
types
of
signs
that
typically
had
been
content-based.
We've
made
some
changes
to
those
I
had
mentioned
the
change
to
interior
real
estate
signs.
Drive-Thru
signs
were
never
addressed
in
our
code
for
drive-through
restaurants.
D
We
now
have
a
section
of
the
code
that
deals
with
that
those
will
be
handled
under
the
conditional
use
permit
that
will
review
those.
The
City
Council
subcommittee
has
also
expanded
language
about
signed
districts
that
allows
special
signed
districts
to
be
approved
for
directional
signage
and
wayfinding
signage
in
certain
districts
of
the
city.
It
also
makes
a
change
that
city
council
approval
is
required
for
signed
programs,
there's
also
language
there,
that
the
owners
authorization
is
required
for
signage
on
the
property.
D
So,
for
example,
on
vacant
parcels,
it
does
require
a
property
owners,
signature
for
any
signage
on
a
vacant
parcel
and
there's
been
a
slight
reduction
to
the
signage.
That's
permitted
for
auto
dealerships
under
the
temporary
signs
again
I've
already
gone
through
those
changes
on
the
temporary
signs.
That's
all
been
merged
into
a
single
category
under
general
provision,
terrified
the
requirements
for
sign
permits,
we've
also
added
language
about
maintenance
of
signs,
so
that
we
have
a.
We
can
do
a
better
job
in
terms
of
enforcement
on
that
we
also
allow
the
substitution
of
non-commercial
messages.
D
This
is
something
else
that
came
out
of
the
Supreme
Court
decision
that
we
cannot
prohibit
non-commercial
messages
where
we
allow
signs
and
districts
it
could
either
be
a
commercial
message
or
a
non
commercial
message.
It's
still
limited
in
the
number
or
square
footage,
and
then
we've
also
added
a
reference
to
state
law
in
terms
of
how
it
deals
with
vehicle
signs.
In
the
abatement
section
of
the
code,
there's
no
changes
there.
There
is
one
new
section
that
has
been
added,
and
this
is
relative
to
street
banners.
D
What
this
does
is
actually
codifies
our
current
practice
of
the
city
manager,
allowing
certain
banners
for
city
sponsored
events
in
the
public
rights-of-way.
That
would
include
both
the
banners
that
are
on
street
light
poles
in
the
public
right-of-way,
as
well
as
the
banners
that
we
occasionally
stretch
across
North
Palm,
Canyon
advertising
city
sponsored
events
with
that
I've
gone
through.
All
of
the
changes
that's
being
proposed
on
the
ordinance
I'd
be
happy
to
take
your
questions
at
this
point
of
time.
A
H
D
Any
type
of
permanent
signage
we
would
be
issuing
permits
where
the
difficulty
comes
is
under
temporary
signs,
and
so
that's
one
of
the
things
that
is
going
to
be
a
little
bit
difficult
on
the
enforcement
side
for
city
staff
to
verify
where
we
do
see.
Multiple
signs
on
a
vacant
parcel.
This
most
often
happens
during
our
election
season
as
you're,
probably
aware
where
there
are
more
signs
than
we'd
be
permitted
by
code.
That's
when
we
would
need
to
verify
with
the
owner
which
signs
remain
and
which
signs
were
not
permitted
or
authorized
did.
H
D
Certainly
something
that
would
be
a
good
way
to
do
that
by
having
some
type
of
a
signed
sticker,
one
of
the
things
that
we
are
going
to
be
doing
for
the
portable
signs
and
I'm.
Sorry
that
I
keep
on
I,
don't
know
if
it's
me,
but
I
keep
on
hearing
that
noise,
I'm,
breathing
I'll
have
to
stop
breathing.
D
Then,
in
order
to
avoid
that
one
of
the
things
that
we'll
be
doing
with
the
portable
signs
is,
we
will
have
a
permanent
sign
tag
affixed
to
those
signs
so
as
they
get
their
permits
as
they
renew
their
permits.
Our
enforcement
staff
will
be
able
to
look
for
that
on
the
temp
other
types
of
temporary
signs.
It's
going
to
be
a
little
bit
more
difficult,
but
certainly
that's
something
that
we
can
think
of
in
terms
of
an
administrative
process
to
use
as
a
way
to
verify
which
are
appropriate
versus
which
are
not.
H
D
D
Planning,
commissioners
are
telling
me
it's
60
days,
so
there
is
a
time
period
now,
one
of
the
difficult
things
again,
because
we're
qualifying
a
lot
of
different
types
of
signs
in
the
path
that
we're
distinct
in
the
past
into
one
category.
One
of
the
questions
that's
come
up.
How
do
we
do
that
with
real
estate?
D
Signs,
there's
going
to
have
to
be
some
flexibility
and
enforcement
of
that
the
event
that's
being
qualified
is
the
sale
of
the
property,
and
so
they're
allowed
to
have
the
sign
up
in
advance
enforcement
really
comes
on
that
portion
once
the
sale
has
closed,
that
they
need
to
remove
the
sign
election
signs
again.
60
days,
I
believe,
is
what
we
have
in
the
ordinance
prior
to
the
event.
H
B
D
H
B
H
D
What
you
might
do,
as
you
consider
this
ordinance
before
you
today,
is
that
you
might
forward
your
recommendations
on
to
the
City
Council
as
they
consider
the
ordinance,
for
example,
if
you
feel
that
the
square
footage
on
the
residential
signs
may
be
excessive,
you
could
forward
a
recommendation
that
the
City
Council
look
at
it
reduce
to
sign
area
for
residential
zoning
districts.
I,
don't
think
you
need
to
go
into
the
specifics
of
the
language,
but
forwarding
your
direction.
That
way
would
be
appropriate.
H
My
concern
is
that
portable
signs
be
placed
in
such
a
way
that
an
individual
who
is
using
a
wheelchair
or
some
other
means,
such
as
that
to
to
traverse,
is
not
facing
an
unfading
pattern
of
signs
that
make
it
far
more
difficult
in
a
sidewalk
area
for
them
to
traverse
and
I.
Don't
see
anything
in
here
that
requires
Standardization
I'm,
not
sure
that
it's
feasible
to
write
an
ordinance.
That
does
that.
D
That's
a
good
thing
to
take
into
consideration.
Let
me
just
go
back
to
your
question
on
the
time
period.
Mr.
Newell
has
assisted
me
here
and
pointed
out
that,
under
the
current
ordinance
for
temporary
signs,
they
can
be
placed
30
days
prior
to
the
election
for
election
signs,
and
then
the
generalized
language
that
we
have
in
the
proposed
is
now
sixty
days.
So
it
does
extend
the
period
that
those
would
be
in
place.
E
I
have
questions
about
some
residential
signs
in
there.
Several
kinds
and
I
agree
with
the
single
fact
that
not
allowing
a
16-foot
but
possibly
allowing
several
signs
that
are
of
lesser
size.
Every
house
in
my
neighborhood
has
a
permanent
security
sign.
If
you
were
to
allow
two
signs
that
one
security
sign
would
take
up.
E
One
of
the
signs
and
I
think
that
I'm
concerned
about
that
and
I'm
also
concerned
about
the
60
60
day
time
frame
in
a
residential
zone
both
because
of
the
real
estate
signs
and
also
I
think
it
limits
the
speech
of
a
resident
who
might
want
their
election
sign
out
longer
than
60
days.
So
I
I
just
have
concerns
about
that.
I'm
wondering
is
this?
How
other
I
know
you
were
just
at
the
National
Planning
meetings?
D
Let
me
talk
about
a
couple
of
things.
First,
let
me
go
back
to
the
issue
of
having
your
security
signs
for
your
security
agencies.
One
of
the
things
that
you
might
recommend
to
the
City
Council
is
to
exempt
certain
types
of
signs
from
the
sign
ordinance,
and
that
would
be
those
that
identify
home
security
because
that's
something
that
pretty
much
most
people
have
and
it's
an
expectation
that
they'd
be
able
to
have
those
types
of
signs.
So
that
might
be
one
way
to
deal
with
that
in
terms
of
what
other
communities
are
doing.
D
As
commissioner
vice-chair
Warmack
indicated,
I
was
just
at
the
National
American
Planning
Association
conference,
and
there
were
a
number
of
sessions
on
the
topic
of
Reed
versus
Gilbert
and
sign
ordinances.
What
other
communities
are
doing
is
they
are
moving
in
a
very
similar
track
that
we
are
in
terms
of
having
very
generalized
requirements
for
all
types
of
temporary
signs,
no
longer
distinguishing
them
by
content.
However,
what
you
will
find
is
there
are
differences
in
the
communities
and
it's
all
based
on
community
preference
and
image.
D
A
I
have
a
lot
of
concerns
and
questions
about
this.
First
of
the
city
attorney
my
understanding
and
I
don't
want
to
play
lawyer
here,
but
that
the
federal
government
is
always
allowed
differences
in
commercial
speech
versus
political
speech.
Difference
in
regulation
of
that
and
I
don't
understand
under
that
with
that
understanding,
rather
why
we
have
to
have
the
same
sign
ordinance
for
political
signs,
which
is
political
speech
versus
other
forms
of
commercial
signs
like
real
estate
signs.
A
This
leads
to
the
letting
the
political
signs
set
the
size
for
the
real
estate
signs,
which
I
think
is,
can
gets
us
to
a
completely
unacceptable
size
for
the
real
estate
signs
I
feel
more
strongly
about
that.
Then
even
the
other
two
commissioners
that
have
spoken
to
that.
But
could
you
discuss
that
yeah.
I
I
can
expand
upon
that
a
bit.
The
court
has
historically
differentiated
between
commercial
speech
as
opposed
to
expressive
speech
in
the
terms
of
the
level
of
protection.
The
law
would
afford
that
type
of
speech.
The
read
versus
town
a
Gilbert
case,
however,
was
simply
looking
at
the
year.
You
have
you've
enact
an
ordinance
that
allows
for
certain
temporary
signs
yet
you're,
basically
creating
categories.
I
The
categories
I
had
in
the
case
for
ideological
signs,
political
signs
and
temporary
directional
signs,
and
what
the
court
said
is
by
creating
these
classifications,
you're
necessarily
trying
to
temper
the
expression
or
the
content
of
these
signs,
and
if
the
court
determines
the
regulation
is
content-based,
it's
nearly
impossible
to
sustain
in
terms
of
a
defense.
I
would.
A
It
just
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
I'm,
afraid
and
I,
don't
want
to
get
into
rediscovery
guessing
what
the
Supreme
Court
wanted,
that
you
couldn't
have
a
that.
The
political
sign
should
then
decide
what
size
of
real
estate
science
would
be
getting
to
the
real
estate
signs
themselves.
There's
a
long
history
of
these
large
signs
being
used
to
create
panics
in
neighborhoods
that
actually,
then,
you
know
get
people
into
panic
selling
when
you
have
large
amounts
of
these.
A
I
A
We're
imposing
the
16
foot
standard
rather
on
the
real
estate
signs,
which
I
think
is
going
to
be
create
all
sorts
of
other
problems
or
I
guess
even
your
security
signs
could
now
be
16
or
16
square
feet.
You
know
that
seems
that
seems
a
bit
ridiculous.
If
we
say
they
can
be
no
content,
restrictions
and
we're,
you
know
we
try
to
allow
for
a
political
sign
of
a
large
size.
That
means
we
have
to
make
every
sign
a
law.
It
will
be
a
large
size.
A
G
Thank
you.
My
name
is
Judy
dirt-track
I'm
a
candidate
for
City,
Council
and
I
have
stepped
up
my
monitoring
of
certainly
the
ordinances
and
legislation
going
on
with
the
city
right
now.
I
am
very
concerned
on
constitutional
grounds
of
what's
happening
on
this
and
for
planning.
Commissioner,
Keller,
Dyne
I
agree
with
the
everything
that
you've
said
and
I
think
there's
been
other
comments.
The
concerns
that
you're
raising
are
the
same
concerns.
I
would
raise
and
I'm
hoping
in
terms
of
the
action
that
you're
taking
I'm
concerned
about
grounds
of
constitutionality.
G
On
this,
for
example,
at
political
times
are
treated
in
exactly
the
same
way.
Commercial
signs
are
if
we
have
an
election
and
there's
six
or
seven
candidates
running.
Believe
me,
nobody
can
stop
me
from
having
six
signs
out
on
my
yard,
because
I
have
a
right
to
have
a
different
sign
for
every
candidate,
so
I'm
and
I'm.
Sorry
I
didn't
review
the
sign
ordinance
in
any
kind
of
detail.
I
don't
know
if
that
would
be
prohibited,
but
I
would
question
the
constitutionality
of
that
I
love.
G
The
remarks
that
you're
already
making-
and
my
request
to
you
is
to
ask
for
further
clarification
on
these
points,
rather
than
having
to
move
immediately
on
this,
because
these
are
constitutional
issues.
I
think
we
don't
have
to
hurry
through
it
and
and
I
hope
that
your
concerns
are
alleviated
before
you
vote
for
any
kind
of
recommended
approval
on
this.
Thank
you.
C
I
just
like
to
read
or
reiterate
the
concern
about
the
size
of
the
signage
and
in
residential
single-family
residential
neighborhoods
I
agree
that
a
16-foot
sawing
or
even
to
eight-foot
square.
The
signs
I
think
are
just
way
too
big.
I'd
be
curious
to
have
some
of
the
reasoning
that
the
subcommittee,
the
ad
hoc
committee
on
this
came
up
with
those
dimensions
and
because
this
is
not
cannot
be
message
based.
I
think
we
just
have
to
be
pretty
firm
about
a
reduced
maximum
square
footage,
whether
it
be
a
single
sign
or
two.
H
D
H
H
D
H
Our
love
had
not
gone
away.
All
right,
I'm
inclined
to
move
this
on
to
City
Council,
but
I
would
like
to
create
an
exemption
for
security.
Signs.
I
would
also
like
to
create
an
exemption
for
the
no
solicitation
signs
that
many
homeowners
have
citing
the
ordinance
in
the
municipal
code
that
prohibits
materials
being
put
on
someone's
home
when
they
do
have
a
no
solicitation.
A
H
Solicitation
no
solicitations
and
I
would
also
like
to
identify
that
we
are
opposed
to
a
single
16
square
foot
sign
in
a
residential
neighborhood
or
two
8
foot.
Signs
and
personally
I
would
be
also
opposed
to
a
8
foot
square
foot
sign
in
a
residential
neighborhood
less
than
with
16,
but
even
in
8
foot.
A
E
E
Right
I
do
have
it
on
you,
I'll
put
it
closer
I,
don't
think
I
can
agree
to
the
60-day
on
the
residential,
because
I
think
that
people
have
a
right
to
speech
that
might
be
longer
than
60
days
for
a
temporary
sign.
So
I
do
agree
with
the
sizing.
I
do
agree
with
the
two
exemptions:
the
exemptions
for
no
solicitation
and
security
signs.
I
think
those
signs
can
be
no
bigger
than
one
square
foot,
maybe
have
that's
gone
to
their
content.
No.
E
E
The
first
gentleman
for
vice-president,
which
I
thought
was
kind
of
charming,
went
up
ten
months
before
the
election,
but
it
I
think
people
have
a
right
to
speech
and
so
I'm
opposed
to
the
limits
and
I,
don't
think
you
can
regulate
the
real
estate
signs
in
single-family
neighborhoods,
so
I'd
be
opposed
to
the
60-day
limit
there.
As.
E
A
D
I
think,
in
terms
of
your
recommendations,
it
would
be
most
helpful
to
forward
those
up
to
the
City
Council
again.
You've
had
a
subcommittee
that
has
been
working
on
this
for
about
the
past
eight
months
and
would
ask
that
those
be
addressed
by
the
subcommittee
to
see
if
they
can
incorporate
those
as
well.
A
H
A
E
A
E
H
H
If
we
put
a
timeframe
on
it,
we
are
going
to
run
into
exactly
the
question
that
I
raised
to
the
commissioner
that
or
the
director
that
you
can
go
for
60
days.
Then
you
drop
it
for
one
and
then
you're
back
and
I'm
reminded
of
one
of
our
neighborhoods
where
right
now
there
is
a
ongoing
controversy
between
those
who
are
supportive
of
our
current
president
and
those
who
are
strongly
opposed
to
our
current
president
and
I.
H
E
I
So
I
think
when
we
talk
about
temper
in
this
context
on
one
hand,
you
could
look
at
it
as
something
that
pertains
to
an
event
and
has
some
sort
of
durational,
relevancy
or
you're
talking
about
a
sign
that
is
not
a
permanent
fixture.
So
something
like
a
sign,
that's
staked
into
the
grass
that
the
as
I
have
any
sort
of
permanent
mount
or
concrete
base.
Something
along
those
lines
may
be
a
temporary
sign,
even
though
you
intend
to
keep
it
out
longer
than
60
days.
So.
E
So
again,
that's
that's
the
concern
I
have
with
this
and
I
think
those
are
the
those
are
the
concerns
I
would
want
relay
to
the
City,
Council
and
otherwise.
I
think
that
I
think
that,
with
regard
to
all
the
other
districts,
they've
done
a
really
good
job,
but
they
need
to
look
more
at
the
residential
with
these
concerns.
Okay,.
C
Just
like
to
bring
up
a
point
that
I
made
earlier
and
that's
the
the
real
estate
signs
that
are
off
site
remote
from
let's
say,
an
open
house.
You
know
this.
This.
The
set
of
regulations
don't
deal
with
that,
but
we
know
I
think
from
reality
that
those
are
going
to
happen.
So
my
only
point
to
counsel
would
be:
can
we
somehow
codify
those
as
well?
Just
so
that
there's
no
disagreement
or
confusion
in
the
future?
C
D
Are
the
key
points
that
I
heard
as
a
potential
motion
number
one?
Is
that
for
residential
districts-
and
this
is
primarily
where
your
concerns
are
based
is
that
there
needs
to
be
a
limitation,
a
greater
limitation
on
the
size
of
those
signs
and
you're,
suggesting
four
square
feet
as
the
maximum
limit
for
the
size
of
signs
in
residential
areas.
You
would
also
propose
to
the
City
Council
that
they
allow
to
permanent
signs
not
to
exceed
a
half
square
foot
in
area.
D
Those
would
be
your
security
signs
or
your
no
solicitation
signs
and
those
would
be
exempt,
and
you
would
be
allowed
to
have,
though,
also
that
there
be
no
time
limitation
on
temporary
signs
and
residential
zoning
districts.
If
there
is
an
event
such
as
a
real
estate
where
the
property
sells,
they
would
need
to
be
removed
or
if
they
are
directly
to
an
election,
they
need
to
be
removed
after
the
election,
but
otherwise
that
there
be
no
time
limit
on
the
temporary
signs.
D
A
A
We
have
more
requirements
on
commercial
speech
and
we're
more
liberal
about
political
speech
and
I
think
that
we
should
try
to
follow
segregate
political
speech
from
commercial
speech
and
if
anyone
else
wants,
if
everyone
else
is
happy
with
that,
we
can
add
it
to
the
ordinance,
if
not
I'd,
like
it.
Just
just
my
personal
statement
to
the
council.
I,
don't
see
anybody
else
excited
about
it,
so
I
will
say
I'll
leave.
It
is
just
my
personal
just
guests
move
on
here.
Okay,
with
that
I
think
we
should
call
the
you
want
to
call
the
roll.
A
B
A
A
D
Mr.
chair
and
members
of
the
Planning
Commission,
this
is
the
third
time
that
you
have
seen
the
recommendations
of
the
ad
hoc
planned
development
district
committee.
We
originally
had
this
on
your
agenda
on
April,
the
12th
for
the
April
12th
Planning
Commission
meeting.
You
also
had
a
study
session
on
the
issue
on
April
the
26th.
D
At
your
study
session
on
April,
the
26th,
you
went
through
each
of
the
recommendations
and
at
that
time
you
identified
the
recommendations
where
you
wanted
to
forward
comments
to
City
Council,
and
there
was
only
one
recommendation
that
you
did
not
want
to
forward
to
the
City
Council.
What
I've
provided
to
you
in
your
backup
is
a
handout
which
is
now
on
legal
size
that
has
an
added
comment
column
to
it,
which
is
identifying
the
recommendations
of
the
Planning
Commission
or
your
comments.
D
So
we
have
the
recommendations
of
the
ad
hoc
committee
and
then
also
your
comments
from
the
planning
mission
and
you'll
notice
that
again,
nearly
all
of
them
are
forward
to
the
City
Council.
That
was
the
action.
That
was
the
discussion
that
you
had
at
the
study
session.
There
are
a
couple
that
you
wanted
to
add
comments
to
I'll
just
go
through
those
very
briefly
and
for
ease
of
going
through
this
document.
I've
now
numbered
these
recommendations,
sequentially
so
that
we
go
in
order,
so
hopefully
that
will
be
helpful.
D
The
first
was
recommendation
number
25,
which
talks
about
using
the
PD
D
process
for
environmentally
sensitive
parcels
for
clustering
of
housing
and
preservation
of
open
space.
This
one
you
recommended
to
forward
to
the
City
Council,
but
with
a
notation
where,
to
the
extent
that
that
issue
is
not
covered
by
other
ordinances,
and
then
you
also
wanted
to
put
it
in
another
section
of
the
document.
So
that
was
a
comment
that
you
had
recommended
there
on
the
next
page
on
comment
number
33.
D
You
wanted
to
combine
two
recommendations
together.
Those
would
now
be
done
under
comment,
number
33
and
then
under
comment
number
37.
This
was
the
only
one
that
you
didn't
want
to
forward
to
the
City
Council,
and
this
is
the
one
that
dealt
with
the
time
frame,
the
approval
time
frame
for
planned
development
districts.
D
The
language
that
you
had
suggested
was
that
the
recommendation
should
reflect
the
same
time
frame
as
the
recent
extension
of
time
ordinance
that
was
just
approved
at
City
Council
last
week,
and
so
I
have
that
notation
there
in
the
column
on
recommendation
number
38.
You
also
suggested
to
forward
this
to
the
City
Council.
D
This
is
the
one
that's
relative
to
the
process
for
approvals,
whether
they
should
go
to
Planning
Commission
first
for
approval
and
then
to
the
AAC.
What
I'd
captured
under
your
comment
is
that
the
Planning
Commission
should
review
development
standards
and
conceptual
architectural
design
first
and
then
forward
to
the
AAC
for
architectural
review.
The
application
would
then
be
returned
to
the
Planning
Commission
for
final
architectural
review
and
again
that
was
trying
to
capture
your
comments
from
the
study
session.
The
next
one
where
there
were
there
was
a
comment,
was
recommendation
number
46.
D
This
is
relative
to
gates
around
neighborhoods
or
developments,
and
what
you
had
recommended
was
to
eliminate
the
second
statement
there
that
gating
of
private
roads
may
be
considered
on
a
case-by-case
basis
upon
making
findings.
That's
the
one
that
you
wanted
to
eliminate
that
language
and
so
I've
struck
that
out
in
the
document
on
recommendation
number
54.
This
was
for
small
lot.
D
You
wanted
to
forward
that
comment
to
the
City
Council,
with
a
comment
to
remove
the
term
significant
relative
to
significant
slopes
that
we
should
consider
standards
to
address
gradient
of
hillside
parcels
and
slopes,
and
so
we
would
take
that
term
significant
out
and
then
the
final
one
is
recommendation,
number
68,
develop
increased
design
standards
or
requirements
for
planned
development
projects.
You
had
recommended
to
forward
that
to
the
City
Council,
but
that
it
be
added
under
the
general
requirements
section.
So
that
was
my
list
of
comments
that
you
had
on
the
recommendations.
D
Again,
the
direction
of
the
Planning
Commission
of
the
study
session
was
to
forward
all
of
the
recommendations
to
the
City
Council,
with
the
exception
of
number
37,
which
was
relative
to
the
time
frame,
and
you
wanted
the
notation
that
the
time
frame
for
planned
developments,
the
approval
period
should
be
the
same
as
all
other
extensions
of
time.
Where's.
D
D
E
D
E
E
The
and
when
we're
looking
at
something
like
the
recommendation
on
37
that
there
be
a
time
period,
what
what
the
recommendation
would
be
you'd,
be
probably
saying
where
you'd
be
giving
the
Planning
Commission
recommendation
and
then
saying
that
the
committee
had
a
slightly
different
recommendation.
Correct.
D
H
My
understanding
was
that
we
had
an
obligation
to
forward
the
recommendations
that
came
from
the
ad
hoc
committee
to
City
Council
in
exactly
the
same
language
as
they
came
to
us
that
we
could
make
additional
comments.
But
the
City
Council
was
required
to
to
see
the
recommendations
from
the
ad
hoc
Council
in
their
unvarnished
form.
D
The
Committee's
recommendation
shall
be
considered
in
good
faith
by
the
Planning
Commission
at
a
duly
notice,
regular,
special
meeting,
the
recommendations,
the
Planning
Commission,
will
consider
whether
or
not
to
make
any
or
all
of
the
recommendations
to
City
Council.
So
that's
the
language
as
any
or
all.
One
of
the
things
that
I
think
is
important,
however,
is
to
preserve
the
language,
as
they
came
out
of
the
ad
hoc
committee,
so
that
City
Council
can
see
that
I
stand.
D
E
D
E
E
That
I
guess
I
had
one
more
comment.
I
think
we
also
had
one
comment
that
didn't
come
from
the
subcommittee,
but
came
in
the
discussions
was
and
I.
Don't
know
how
we
do
that
that
one
of
the
impacts
of
use
of
the
PD
was
that
the
zoning
code
hadn't
been
amended
or
it
had
slowed.
The
process
of
amending
the
zoning
code
and
I'm
wondering
if
there's
a
possibility
of
adding
a
comment
from
the
Planning
Commission
to
one
of
the
sections.
E
E
D
You
would
like
to
either
add
that
as
a
separate
comment
or
under
recommendation
number
61,
it
says
create
new
zones
to
accommodate
the
types
of
development
actually
being
built.
I
believe
the
intent
of
that
was
to
create
new
zones
in
the
zoning
ordinance
rather
than
using
the
planned
development
process.
And
so,
if
you
would
just
like
to
add
a
comment
there,
that
the
Planning
Commission.
A
E
A
A
Is
there
any
further
commissioner
questions?
I
I
still
have
some
concerns
about
item
32
or
39,
and
that
lead
to
impracticality.
If
we
allow
someone
to
come
up
and
make
another
set
of
comments
on
what
we've
said
and
then
we
make
more
changes,
we're
going
to
be
allowed
to
make
more
changes
based
on
their
comments,
and
then
they
are
going
to
be
allowed
to
comment
on
that.
A
A
I
It
on
okay,
Marvin
ruse,
I
was
on
the
committee
I'm
with
MSA
consulting
and
was
a
20-year
member
of
the
staff
and
I
Kathy's
absolutely
right.
The
reason
that
we're
here
is
that
the
zoning
ordinance
was
not
always
being
churned
on
these
new
items,
because
the
PDD
was
handling
it
and
I.
Think
that
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
good
recommendations
here.
I
don't
want
to
get
into
too
much
in
detail,
though
there
were
two
that
I
started.
I
Looking
at
on
54
on
the
zoning
code,
changes
for
the
small
lot
developments
require
an
average
of
5,000
square-foot
a
lot
I.
Don't
any
problem
with
the
language
I
think
that
the
small
lot
ordinance
may
not
hit
5,000.
So
you
know
this
five
or
as
adopted,
would
be
language,
whether
it's
fifty
five
or
forty,
five,
whatever
that
would
be
I,
don't
think
we
needed
to
get
into
the
ABS.
I
We
didn't
need
to
define
fun
anything
in
this
ordinance,
we're
just
defining
direction
and
on
62
I
didn't
read
this
this
way
before
but
says
remove
language
in
the
zoning
code.
That
specifically
allows
a
City
Council
to
approve
modifications
of
development
standards.
That's
not
as
I
recall
how
the
how
the
committee
worded
that
I
think
it
was.
I
There
may
be
some
specific
items
that
we
want
to
put
in
the
code
that
should
not
be
modified,
but
the
whole
idea
that
the
PDD
is
to
allow
some
modification
of
zoning
code
standards,
not
general
plan
and
I
would
just
offer
that,
and
thanks
thanks
the
Commission
for
the
support
and
flynn
for
all
of
the
herding
of
the
cats
that
he
did
was
a
very
dynamic
situation.
I'm
glad
I
could
participate.
Thank
you,
I.
Don't.
E
G
My
name
is
Judy
dear
attract.
This
is
a
day
of
real
celebration
and
I
have
many
thank
yous.
I
certainly
want
to
thank
Ms
where
MOOC
and
Len
Keller
dine
from
the
Planning
Commission.
You
served
on
the
PDD
subcommittee,
Marva
ruse
served
on
the
PDD
subcommittee,
Tracie
Conrad,
Michael,
Johnson,
Scott,
Big
B
and
mr.
Hansen,
and
you
worked
long
and
hard
and
very
conscientiously.
Mr.,
you
did
a
fantastic
job
of
coordinating
this
and
there
it
was
long
and
hard
work.
G
Very
conscientious
work,
I
feel
is
going
to
lead
to
tremendous
change
and
I'm
really
happy
about
it
and
I'm
very
proud
of
your
work.
This
came
about
from
a
litigation
agreement
between
mr.
Westman
and
the
Dakota
project
and
people
for
proper
planning
they
requisitioned
a
study.
I
was
the
consultant
on
the
study
that
did
the
data
and
the
research
and
I
want
to
thank
people
for
proper
planning,
because
I
think
they
initiated
this
and
as
a
result
of
their
work.
G
There
was
going
to
be
a
lot
of
change
in
this
city
and
it
shows
sometimes
what's
a
healthy
outcome
of
litigation.
We
think
litigation
always
leads
to
negative
results.
This
has
been
a
very
positive
result.
I
also
and
I
excuse
asked
for
your
forgiveness
must
have
created
confusion,
I
think
with
the
Planning
Commission.
Who
did
want
to
hear
from
me
on
the
actual
recommendations,
as
the
consultant
on
this,
and
and
actually
perhaps
it
wasn't
clear
enough
about
that.
The
reason
I
wasn't
commenting
a
great
deal
on.
G
I
want
to
keep
describing
what
that
was
because
I'm,
the
only
person
that
I
know
that
did
that
I
went
back
over
90
case
decisions
in
11
years
and
spent
approximately
five
or
six
hours
on
every
single
one
of
those
pulling
out
that
data
and
trying
to
understand
the
use
of
the
PDD
I
did
come
out
with
some
preliminary
questions.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
important
for
you
and
the
City
Council
you're,
going
to
have
PD
DS
continue
to
come
before
you
for
review.
G
It
is
quasi-legislative
because
of
that,
and
so,
if
you're
not
happy
with
it,
you
get
to
tell
that
person
go
back
home
because
you
have
almost
unlimited
discretion
on
a
legislative
item
to
turn
it
down
and
I
want
to
be
sure
that
you
understand
that
power
and
I
will
be
talking
to
the
City
Council
about
that
as
well.
Thank
you
very
much
and
thank
you
again
for
your
hard
work.
Thank
you.
A
E
37
I
think
the
recommendation
of
Planning
Commission
was
that
we
have
a
limitation
on
extensions
but
that
it
matches.
We
agree
with
them
that
there
should
be
a
limitation
on
extensions,
but
that
it
should
match
the
most
recent
recommendation
that
we
sent
on
to
City
Council.
So
we
should
use
the
same
language,
but
I
don't
want
us
to
look
like.
We
were
disagreeing
with
the
subcommittee
number
39
I.
E
The
only
other
one
is
number
number
62,
there's
a
lot
of
language
to
that
effect
in
I,
think
the
general
plan
and
the
zoning
code,
which
doesn't
need
to
be
there.
The
console
retains
the
right
to
make
changes,
but
we
didn't
need
to
specifically
call
it
out.
I
think
that's
where
that
comment
came
from
I
believe.
D
One
of
the
references
that
we
looked
at
in
the
ad
hoc
committee
was,
for
example,
in
the
city's
high-rise
ordinance
where
it
says
this
is
the
open
space
that's
required.
This
is
the
additional
setback
that's
required,
but
these
may
be
modified
by
City,
Council
and
I.
Think
it
was
those
specific
references
so.
E
D
E
H
This
there's
been
a
lot
of
disagreement
around
PD
DS
and
that
a
group
of
folks
could
come
together
and
develop
68
recommendations
that
are
almost
unanimous
in
agreement
as
to
how
we
should
proceed
going
forward
is
is
something
to
be
celebrated.
It
truly
is
a
remarkable
achievement.
I
think
that
a
couple
of
things
that
I
want
to
add
is
there
also,
as
you
near
Union
unanimity
that
PD
DS
are
an
important
planning
tool,
just
one
that
had
been
significantly
overused
in
our
city
so
going
forward.
A
A
What
we
really
want
to
do
here,
there's
one
of
the
biggest
things
we
do
with
the
PD
D
is
use
it
as
a
patch
up
of
our
rather
dated
and
inconsistent
zoning
ordinance,
so
we're
going
to
have
to
resolve
some
of
those
issues
and
that's
going
to
mean,
from
the
council's
point
of
view,
some
budget
for
some
doing.
Some
updates,
which
you
know
I,
have
long
champion.
I
think
Kathy
has
too,
but
there's
really
gonna
have
to
be
some
different
different
things
to
make
this
work
with
that
Dyke.
E
B
E
B
B
B
D
Chair
and
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
I
wanted
to
introduce
to
you
today.
Mr.
Tom
Garcia
Tom
was
recently
hired
as
the
city
engineer
and
he
is
the
director
of
engineering
services,
and
so
we
wanted
to
welcome
him
to
the
city
staff
and
he
is
here
attending
the
meeting
with
us
today.
So
if
you
have
any
engineering
questions
or
comments,
Tom
will
be
your.
J
C
A
C
A
D
Chair
and
members
of
the
Planning
Commission,
as
you
will
remember,
on
our
last
agenda,
we
had
both
a
variance
and
a
conditional
use
permit
to
allow
a
restaurant
use
at
the
La
Sirena
villas
property.
The
variance
was
because
the
property
did
not
meet
the
threshold
requirement
in
order
to
have
a
restaurant.
Our
code
currently
requires
a
minimum
of
20
guestrooms.
The
La
Sirena
property
only
was
approved
at
18
guestrooms,
and
so
that
was
the
reason
for
the
variance
application.
D
Based
on
the
testimony
that
was
offered
in
your
discussion
at
the
last
meeting,
it
was
offered
that
potentially
there
could
be
up
to
20
guest
rooms
on
the
property
in
terms
of
dividing
a
couple
of
their
villas.
What
we
did
was
we
visited
the
property
a
week
ago
and
we
toured
the
property
with
mr.
Vick
hland.
We
look
at
the
possibility
of
dividing
two
of
the
rooms
in
so
doing.
D
That
would
then
create
a
maximum
or
a
maximum
of
20
guest
rooms
on
the
property
or
20
door
keys
on
the
property,
which
would
then
comply
with
the
minimum
requirement
for
having
a
restaurant.
So
staffs
recommendation
to
you
today
is
to
go
ahead
and
proceed
with
the
conditional
use
permit
application.
The
property
can
meet
the
minimum
threshold
requirement
of
20
guestrooms
and
based
on
that,
you
could
take
action
on
the
conditional
use
permit
and
the
variance
application
is
no
longer
needed.
E
Was
wondering
if
there's
any
reason
for
the
time
limitations
on
the
restaurant
I
think
they're
intending
it
should
be
open
from
11:00
till
10:00
and
they
were
having
the
public
only
from
4:00
to
10:00.
But
it
seems
to
me
that
there's
no
reason
for
that
time
limitation
and
is
staff.
Okay,
if
we
come
up
with
additional
flexibility
again.
D
A
Further
questions,
okay:
this
is
a
public
hearing.
Is
there
any
member
of
the
well
first
off?
Does
the
applicant
wish
to
make
a
any
sort
of
comment
or
I
assume
that
you're
happy
with
this
all
right?
Is
there
any
further
public
comment
on
this
item?
We
took
quite
a
bit
of
public
comment
last
time,
seeing
none
close
the
public
hearing
and
entertain
a
motion,
I'm
sure.
B
E
I
wanted
to
make
a
motion,
but
the
motion
would
be
with
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
for
the
restaurant
hours
and
I
would
suggest
that
we
allow
the
restaurant
to
be
open
from
11
to
10
seven
days
a
week,
and
that
doesn't
mean
they
have
to
be
open.
But
they
would
be
able
to
welcome
the
public
in
if
they
needed
to
if
they
wanted
to.
D
D
H
E
H
E
E
H
Know
that
from
talking
to
many
people
in
the
neighborhood,
it
was
the
village
vesting.
That
was
their
concern
and
they
were
extremely
supportive
of
mr.
and
mrs.
villain
and
this
project
and
just
simply
asked
that
there
not
be
additional
traffic
brought
into
the
neighborhood
own
village,
vestan
and
I.
Think
that's
a
reasonable
request.
E
A
C
E
B
A
H
A
A
That
there's
items
to
C
to
G
has
already
been
continued
and
that
gets
us
to
unfinished
business
item.
Three:
a
mg2
for
architectural
review
and
land
use
permit
for
the
storefront
design
and
outdoor
seating
space
for
the
proposed
Tommy
Bahama's
restaurant
and
retail
space
located
within
Block
C
of
the
downtown
Palm
Spring
specific
plan
at
111,
North
Palm,
Canyon,
Drive,
Suite
150.
But
it's
good
to
see
it's
very
good
to
see
that
we're
coming
in
with
the
designs
for
these
building
in
fact
prints
these
individual
storefronts.
Finally,.
A
Now
we
have
a.
Unfortunately,
we
have
three
members
absent
today
and
a
fourth
member
one
other
member
of
this
commission
lives
in
the
immediate
neighborhood
and
therefore
is
by
law
as
to
who's
himself.
So
that
would
be
me
and
so
I
we
don't
have
through.
We
don't
have
four
members.
We
don't
have
a
quorum
to
vote
on
it.
K
So
what
is
being
brought
back
to
you
today
are
those
plans
and
I'm.
Sorry,
the
plans
that
we
have
behind
you
are
not
sticking
to
the
wall,
so
what
I'll
do
is
I'll
go
through
what
I
have
here
electronically
mind
you
that
these
plans
were
what
are
what
you
received
in
your
packet
you
today,
you
also
received
three
revised
sheets.
K
So
that's
shown
here
in
this
exhibit
on
sheet
three
again,
this
is
the
old
one
that
you
see
up
on
the
screen,
the
new
windows,
the
the
planting,
there's
the
current
screen,
the
one
on
the
screen
currently
shows
planter
appliance
or
where
there
are
actually
parking
spaces.
So
you'll
notice
that
difference
on
page
three
there's
actually
a
parking
area
where
some
of
those
plants
are
located.
K
K
D
K
E
K
So
as
a
part
of
that,
they
also
did
some
reconfiguring
of
the
seating
areas.
Staff
made
a
recommendation
about
the
permanent
installation
of
a
bar
along
the
entryway.
That
is
no
longer
part
of
the
proposal.
They
are
showing
seating
instead,
so
they
see
recommended
approval
of
option
1
subject
to
three
conditions.
However,
staff
still
recommends
option
2,
as
as
we
mentioned
it
on
when
we
reviewed
the
guidelines
under
architectural
review
guideline
or
criterion,
one
discusses
relationship
of
structures
and
sidewalk
areas,
and
we
felt
that
the
option
2
is
a
better
design
for
for
the
space.
K
H
H
K
A
I
question
this
Plaza
was
added
at
the
direction
of
the
council.
We
did
the
last
review
of
the
specific
plan
as
I
recall.
Do
we,
the
council
state
their
intent
there,
that
that
should
be
a
public
plaza
or
was
there
any
discussion
and
I
guess
a
secondary
question?
When
we
went
out
there
and
took
a
tour,
we
were
told
there
was
a
site
for
the
tree
and
which
is
is
that?
Where
is
that
with
alternative
one
or
alternative
to
where
the
tree
be
moved?
A
D
Me
address
the
first
question
and
then
mr.
Newell
can
talk
about
the
tree
relative
to
the
additional
space
there
at
the
intersection
of
what
we
formerly
referred
to
as
Main
Street
and
North
Palm
Canyon.
It
was
the
intent
of
the
City
Council,
as
they
were
looking
at
changes
to
the
specific
plan
to
create
additional
open
space
and
views.
D
K
E
E
B
E
K
E
C
I'll
get
to
it.
I'm
sorry
I
have
a
question
of
the
applicant
and
it's
not
really
a
design
question
in
my
mind.
I've
got
to
think
that
a
lot
of
this
is
predicated
on
seat
counts.
We
were
told
that
the
interior
seating
is
is
quite
limited.
The
model
is
that
most
of
the
on
seating
for
dining
and
for
the
bar
is
outside
I
guess.
My
question
is,
and
I
really
hope
I
can
get.
An
honest
answer
is:
what
is
the
target
seat
count.
C
I
mean
I
realized
with
restaurants
in
terms
of
the
economics
of
it
that
they're
often
as
sort
of
a
cutoff
point,
and
if
the
applicant
could
just
answer
that
question
it
can
be
arranged
but
I'd
sort
of
like
to
get
an
idea
because
just
to
be
to
the
chase
here,
I
think
a
lot
of
this
is
predicated
on
you.
The
number
of
two
tops
and
four
tops
outside
there
and
I
think
it's
important
that
we
know
what
the
target
seed
count
is.
L
The
address
of
the
record,
sir,
my
name
is
Frank
Canard,
I'm
design,
director
for
Tommy
Bahama
nice
to
see
you
folks
again
our
original
target,
as
you
said,
because
the
interior
space
is
somewhat
limited
and
because
we
were
also
trying
to
develop
a
property
that
took
advantage
of
downtown
Palm
Springs,
the
weather,
the
outside.
All
of
that
our
goal
was
to
be
in
the
neighborhood.
Ideally,
if
we
could
have
gotten
200
seats,
that
would
have
been
terrific,
it
gets
a
little.
L
L
So
if
I
go
back
to
our
original
premise
that
we
presented
when
the
tree
was,
for
all
intents
and
purposes
closer
to
the
corner,
which
was
what
we
were
provided
by
the
landlord
all
along
that
allowed
us
to
be
in
the
neighborhood
of
a
hundred
and
eighty
five
seed
counts,
and
that
was
a
little
lower
than
maybe
what
our
target
would
have
been.
But
we
were
feeling
pretty
comfortable
about
that.
L
L
So
if
we
were
to
go
with
where
the
tree
was
moved
towards
our
space
and
make
that
completely
accessible,
360
degrees,
that
drops
our
seat
count
down
to
approximately
a
hundred
and
fifty
some.
So
now
we're
dropping
by
upwards
of
thirty
to
forty
seats,
depending
on
how
we
can
fit
tables
in
the
shape
that
we
have
to
make
the
space
to
pleasantly
work
with
the
tree
and
work
with
the
pavers
work,
with
the
landscaping
that
type
of
thing.
B
E
E
L
I
would
tell
you
that
we
typically
don't
have
experience
splitting
liquor
service
non
liquor
service,
it's
pretty
tough
to
control
that
first
of
all,
and
secondly,
it
creates
a
completely
different
staffing
expectation
and
service
expectations.
So
I
think
what
you're
saying
is:
if
there
were
tables
and
chairs
provided
out
there
and
we
were
able
to
access
them.
That
might
be
what
you're
describing
our
concern
there
is.
It
then
gets
into
a
situation
of
policing
those
tables
to
be
open
for
our
guests
versus
someone
else
that
might
be
setting
there.
L
H
So
on
option
B
that
you
presented,
what
is
your
actual
seed
count
for
option?
B.
H
L
L
Think
what
we're
saying
is
our
preference
obviously
is
to
integrate
the
tree.
As
you
know,
a
good-faith
compromise,
even
though
we're
suggesting
moving
the
tree
or
leaving
it
where
it
was
when
we
were
working
with
the
original
plans
for
the
tree,
that
that
would
be
a
compromise
that
would
be
more
comfortable
than
if
the
tree
were
to
stay
in
option
a
location
and
we
have
360
degree,
accessibility,.
L
H
That,
then,
within
your
the
proposed
fencing
area,
you
would
have
something
in
the
in
the
range
of
a
hundred
and
fifty
four
seats
and
that
you
are
comfortable
with
that.
It's
not
your
first
option
that
you're
coming
comfortable
with
it.
I
am
trying
I'm
putting
you
on
the
spot,
but
this
appears
to
be
a
proposal
that
kinda
comes
from
from
your
team
to.
L
Be
to
be
perfectly
honest,
we
need
a
decision,
so
we
felt
as
though
we
needed
to
propose
two
options
of
which
we
could
live
with,
and
so
I
would
say
that
the
easiest
answer
is
yes,
we
are
comfortable
with
the
second
option
and
we
will
need
to
figure
out
how
to
make
that
work.
That's
what
we're
presented
with
you.
L
I
think
that
this
gets
tricky
because
our
original
goal,
or
our
original
plans
with
the
documentation
that
we
had
from
the
landlord
up
until
the
last
time
we
were
here,
the
tree
was
at
a
different
location
and
we
build
everything
off
of
that.
So
we
lose
ostensibly.
We
lose
a
lot
more
seats
from
what
the
original
was
to
what
either
of
these
two
options
are.
Obviously
the
second
option
is
where
we
lose
the.
M
The
best
explanation
I
have
is
that
plans
were
sent
by
the
wrong
consultant
and
tommy
bahama.
The
original
plans
were
sent
by
the
wrong
consultants
to
tommy
bahama's
and
they
worked
over
to
a
location
that
was
not
correct
by
the
time
we
figured
it
out
and
we
had
plans
for
approval.
We
notified
them.
Plans
waited
with
the
city
and
we
get
to
put
the
tree
approved
based
on
our
landscape
plants
in
the
correct
location
and
mr.
hudson
discovered
during
the
last
hearing
that
the
tree
was
in
the
wrong
location.
It.
M
A
M
M
The
reason
this
line
is
here
is,
if
you
see
this
line,
hit
the
staircase
tower
oops
the
snakeheads
tie
off
the
Kimpton
hotel
is
basically
lining
up
with
this
line
here.
So
if
the
trees
out
here
the
lines
here
so
the
tree
would
not
block
the
view
corridor
towards
the
museum,
which
was
the
intent
at
the
time
to
move
the
building
or
to
increase
the
setback
along
Main
Street
and
on
the
corner.
Okay,.
A
A
C
C
C
Sometimes
these
these
problems
and
I
have
two
specific
questions:
I'm
looking
at
sort
of
the
two
ends
of
the
outdoor
seating
areas,
though
the
Western
like
of
it,
let's
say
towards
the
museum
and
then
on
the
other
hand,
the
southern
portion
along
Palm
Canyon,
there
seems
to
me
I,
don't
know
even
the
whole
western
leg
of
the
outdoor
seating
seems
I
think
you
could
put
more
tables
in
there.
To
be
quite
frank,
maybe
some
two
tops
against
the
glass
there's,
probably
in
room
for
another
table
at
the
the
western
end
and
well.
C
I
realized
that
you
may
not
want
to
put
seats
in
front
of
your
retail
windows.
I
think
that
could
be
a
potential
option
in
order
to
make
this
work,
because,
certainly
as
a
business
I
want
to
see
this,
this
happened
but
I
think
we're
we're
getting
to
the
point
where
believe
it
or
not.
C
This
tree
location
is
quite
important
to
all
of
us
and
I'm,
hoping
that
we
can
find
a
way
to
make
a
work
and
have
you
know
plenty
lot
of
outdoor
seating
on
at
the
corner,
public
seating,
which
I
think
will
really
be
a
benefit
to
the
project
and
then
enough
seats
for
Tommy
Bahama's
to
make
it
work.
So
maybe,
if
you
could
answer
those
two
specific
questions
as
a
start,
I'd
appreciate
it.
J
My
name
is
Justin
Hill
I'm,
with
mg2
the
design
architect
for
Tommy
Bahama,
we're
out
of
Seattle
Washington
and
specifically
around
your
questions
around
seating.
The
idea,
obviously-
and
it's
not
clear
actually
on
this
plan-
is
the
entire
wall
is
open
about
so
part
of
the
issue
here.
Is
you
want
indoor
outdoor
so
put
by
putting
a
row
of
tables
against
the
window,
the
wall,
the
exterior?
Well?
Clearly,
you
block
that
off.
So
the
idea
of
this
bar
is
most
of
the
time
those
wall,
those
walls,
would
be
open.
J
You've
got
flow
in
between
and
there's
just
not
enough
room
to
put
another
row
of
tables
in
that
middle
area.
Although
I'm
sure,
if
you
came
back
and
saw
the
restaurant
operators
later,
they
might
try
so
and
then,
as
far
as
putting
a
restaurant
in
front
of
the
in
front
of
the
retail
side,
they've
tried
that
in
past
it's
not
successful.
Those
are
not
very
active
seats
because
they're
not
they
feel
like
their
antler
to
the
to
the
project.
J
E
Don't
like
the
second
proposal
in
part
because
I
don't
like
moving
the
tree
that
so
as
I'm
struggling
with
this.
It's
a
question
of
how
do
I
feel
about
the
first
proposal
and
I.
Don't
know
what
the
other
commissioners
feelings
on
it
are,
but
I'm
I
like
I
like
the
placement
of
the
original
tree
and
not
the
movement
not
moving.
It.
B
A
H
Am
with
Commissioner
Hudson
I
want
to
find
a
way
to
make
this
work.
We
want
to
see
Tommy
Bahama
at
that
corner.
I
think
it
will
be
a
great
addition
to
to
our
community.
It's
just
trying
to
find
the
location
that
works
best
if
we
kept
option
B
in
terms
of
the
seat
plan,
but
move
the
tree
back
a
little
bit
closer
to
the
entrance
of
the
restaurant.
Is
that
something
that
would
work
for
for
everyone.
H
K
A
E
E
H
Trying
to
move
the
tree
so
that
it's
not
in
line
of
sight
for
individuals
looking
down
Main
Street,
so
by
bringing
it
a
one
or
two
couple
of
feet
closer
to
the
entrance
to
the
restaurant.
So,
instead
of
having
a
10-foot
buffer
around
the
tree,
we
have
something
less
than
that.
What
I
think
it
will
accomplish.
H
B
E
E
C
It
wasn't
it's
not
even
ten
feet,
it's
you
know,
because
the
anyway
I
won't
get
into
too
much
detail,
but
the
ten
feet
is
actually
two
it
does.
It
includes
the
bench
in
other
words,
so
it
would
probably
be
more
like
eight
feet:
the
cat,
Cathy
I'm
sort
of
listening
to
Lisa
and
listening
to
you
and
I'm,
not
sure.
C
If
we
need
to
personally
I
think
that's
the
scheme,
that's
shown
in
in
scheme
a
let's
call
it
that,
where
the
railing
basically
bisects
the
tree
will
I
just
don't
think
it's
very
elegant,
I
still
think
going
back
to
page
six
and
scheme,
which
is
college
game,
B
I
think
there's
still
a
way
to
make
this
work.
I
think
having
the
tree
will
float
with
its.
You
know,
pretty
elegant
seating.
C
All
the
way
around
the
tree
and
a
much
simpler
railing
for
the
restaurant
will
be
much
more
successful
and
again
you
know
I
don't
mean
to
be
argumentative,
but
I.
Think
the
architects
statement
about
the
seating,
I
think
there's
still
ways
of
of
getting
your
target
number
of
seats
and
allowing
us
to
move
the
tree
will
at
least
in
a
compromised
position
towards
the
the
restaurant,
so
that
I
want
to
do
this
with
a
subcommittee.
C
L
E
C
Well,
I
can
do
this
probably
Tuesday
or
Wednesday
of
next
week,
but
I
think
it
would
be
terrific.
If
maybe
this
the
applicant
could
do
a
quick
study
and
I
hate
to
sort
of
belabor
this,
but
I
think
it
is
a
pretty
important
corner
and
I
think
as
part
of
this
I'd
like
to
see
sort
of
a
revision
of
the
paving
plan
too.
I
think
that
sort
of
oval
scheme
with
some
of
the
spokes
I
think
maybe
could
be
restated
based
on
this
and
again
I'm.
E
J
So
our
goal
here
today
is
to
get
an
approval
right
and
so
obviously,
in
working
in
congestion
with
you
folks,
I
would
say
that
we
are
open
to
moving
the
tree
in
and
out
a
little
bit
and
I
think
that
we
are
confident
that
we
can
come
up
with
a
seating
plan
that
works.
So
if
you
are
not
to
suggest
process,
but
if
you're
able
to
put
forth
a
motion
with
a
condition
that
we
are
moving
the
tree
slightly
and
and
I'm
also
hearing
with
access
around
it,
I
think
we
can
make
that
work.
J
A
J
A
C
Maybe
can
I
sort
of
jump
in
here
with
a
recommendation.
I
can
understand
the
applicants
need
to
get
going
on
this.
With
with
mr.
Brown's
timelines,
I'd
like
to
propose
this
I
think
staff
obviously
has
heard
our
goal
is
basically
to
get
open
space
around
the
tree.
Will
our
goal
is
to
move
the
tree
closer,
at
least
to
where
it
was
originally
shown?
C
I'm
not
saying
it
actually
has
to
match
it
and
I
think
there
needs
to
be
a
minimum
of
10
feet,
clear
dimension
between
the
bench,
the
seating
bench
of
the
tree
will
and
the
railing
of
the
restaurant.
C
Hear
you
white
in
feet,
I
think
10
feet.
If
we're
talking
about
this,
this
movable,
seating
and
so
forth,
10
feet
is
not
that
much
when
you
sort
of
pace
it
out
in
inside
a
room.
It's
really
not
that
much.
If,
if
it
becomes
necessary
to
do
less
than
10
feet,
fine
personally
I'd
like
to
see
a
coordination
and
mr.
C
Braun-
maybe
you
can
you
can
Shepherd
this
through,
but
I
think
there
needs
to
be
coordination
between
the
the
tommy
bahama
designers
and
the
landscape
architect
on
this
project,
just
to
sort
of
coordinate
the
paving
coordinate
any
ideas
about
this
outdoor
furniture,
which
I
think
is
terrific,
but
I-
think
with
that
I'm
comfortable
with
staff
approval
any
director
approval
in
order
that
you
guys
can
get
going
on
this
I
think
we
labor
these
points
until
unless
commissioners,
you
disagree
with
me
via.
D
My
understanding
of
the
motion
is
that
you
want
to
try
and
keep
the
tree
in
its
original
location
as
close
as
possible,
maintain
a
ten-foot
distance
from
the
seating
to
the
railing,
while
still
trying
to
maintain
the
seating
count
for
the
restaurant,
as
proposed
by
the
applicant.
Does
that
summarize?
Yes,.
D
A
D
H
A
Dakota
PS
LLC,
requesting
an
amendment
to
this
is
the
problem,
one
that
causes
the
whole
PDD
problem
right,
requesting
an
amendment
to
an
approved
plan,
development
district
to
eliminate
one
unit
and
install
a
trailhead
to
nowhere.
At
the
south
end
of
the
6.37
acre
to
Val
manone
is
Dakota
located
at
5150
no.1
South
Bilardo
Road
of
staff
report.
Please.
K
Check
our
dining
commissioners
at
January,
25th
meeting
2017,
you
consider
to
request
for
this
project
the
first
being
modification
of
development
plans
for
lots
37
through
39
into
two
parcels
effectively
replacing
one
unit
with
a
casita
for
another
unit.
The
other
request
was
the
installation
of
a
trailhead,
as
required
by
the
conditions
of
approval
upon
reviewing
the
proposals.
The
Commission
continued,
the
matter
on
January
25th
and
directed
the
Afghan
to
move
unit
38
five
feet
away
from
the
street
and
with
an
improved
Park
space
at
the
trailhead.
K
So
the
African
has
submitted
a
revised
plan
showing
these
changes
specifically
they've
increased
the
building
setback
two
feet
from
the
street.
Previously
it
was
11
feet
and
now
it's
shown
as
13
feet
and
they
are
proposing
for
additional
acacia
trees
adjacent
to
the
side
of
the
building
to
screen
the
blank
wall
from
the
street.
K
We
have
a
rendering
behind
me
here.
Unfortunately,
I
don't
have
it
on
eclis,
but
it
does
show
what
the
view
would
be
behind
me.
It
does
show
what
the
view
would
be
from
the
street
with
the
new
planting
that
is
proposed
in
response
to
the
trailhead
issue.
The
African
has
submitted
an
enhanced
design
of
the
trailhead
entry
and
it
does
include
seating
bike,
racks,
boulders,
planting
and
shade
trees
adjacent
to
the
sidewalk
at
the
very
southerly
end
of
the
site.
So,
with
these
changes,
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
the
project
subject
to
three
two
conditions.
K
The
first
is
related
to
some
requirements
to
renal
eyes.
The
graded
desert
that
has
been
pacted
from
the
overall
construction
of
the
site
on
this
southerly
end
and
submit
a
landscape
plan
addressing
revisions
from
the
AAC
for
director
approval.
The
second
condition
is
that
pirate
issuance
of
a
building
permit
for
the
proposed
homes
or
casitas
the
Afghan,
is
to
submit
a
lot
line
adjustment
to
the
engineering
department
to
revise
the
lot
lines
for
the
two
new
parcels
that
would
be
created
from
this
amendment.
So
I
can
go
through
the
plans
with
you
quickly.
K
What
you
have
on
the
screen
behind
me
does
show
the
new
newly
proposed
layout
on
the
southerly
end
of
the
project
site
with
the
two
homes
and
the
two
casita
units.
This
is
the
floor
plan
of
the
casita
units,
there's
a
casita
one
and
casita
two
and
the
elevations
of
those
casitas,
and
then
this
was
the
rip.
This
was
the
rendering
that
you
previously
saw
back
in
January.
K
So
this
this
isn't
what
they
have
revised
the
revised
rendering
as
I
said,
I
don't
have
electronically,
but
it
is
on
the
wall
behind
me
here
and
does
reflect
the
changes
that
include
the
landscape
changes
and
the
relocated
building
for
the
rack.
So
that
concludes
my
report.
I
can
answer
any
questions
you
might.
E
Required
the
last
time
water,
the
water
fountain.
The
idea
of
this
was
a
little
Park
that
somebody
could
stop.
Since
we
weren't
getting,
we
were
getting
a
trailhead
to
nothing
which
was
our
public
benefit.
We
had
required
a
water
fountain
and
a
little
park
where
you
could
stop
and
park
your
bike.
I,
don't
see
a
water
fountain
there,
I
I,
don't
understand!
Why
don't
see
a
water
fountain
is
am
I
correct
that
there
is
not.
E
E
K
K
M
Mike
LeBron,
with
my
development,
five
half-half
sunrise
way.
I
have
our
engineer
and
Sam
born
here.
He
can
comment
on
why
we
would
like
to
keep
the
house
where
it
is
right
now
and
don't
push
it
back
five
feet,
because
it
doesn't
make
a
very
nice
experience
for
the
future
owner
of
a
Lowe's
with
regard
to
his
side
yards
with
regard
to
the
drinking
fountain
I,
don't
think
any
other
project
in
the
city
has
been
required
to
provide
a
drinking
fountain.
M
We
propose
that
Park
at
one
point
in
the
past,
including
the
shade
structure,
because
we
wanted
to
get
the
Quimby
fees
waived
and
therefore
created
a
public
park
there
that
we
withdraw
that
request
and
therefore
that
public
park
actually
is
no
longer
necessary
as
a
condition
because
it
was
related
to
a
waiving
of
certain
fees.
With
regard
to
the
public
benefit
of
the
project.
We
dedicated
a
hillside
lands
to
the
city,
and
that
was
approved
at
the
time.
H
C
C
There
was
a
drinking
a
water
fountain
element
there
am
I
right.
Okay,
so
I
feel
comfortable.
Basically,
you
know
requiring
that
to
appear
in
terms
of
the
setback
you
know,
I'm,
just
looking
at
the
site
plan.
Now
the
sidewalk
landscaping
property
line,
setback
well,
I
think,
personally,
that
there's
enough
enough
separation,
especially
with
the
the
Augmented
landscaping,
that
personally
I'm
I'm
okay
with
field
not
not
pushing
about
the
full
five
feet.
B
Okay,
I'm.
E
Motion
is
to
approve
the
staff
report,
but
you're
required.
My
motion
is
to
approve
the
staff
report
and
require
the
drinking
fountain.
Then
the
reason
for
it
is
that
we
as
one
of
the
public
benefits
we
required
a
trailhead,
but
that
you
haven't
secured
the
trail
for
the
trailhead.
So
this
this
little
bit
of
a
parklet
is
an
exchange
for
that
as
the
public
benefit
and
as
the
project
with
the
smallest.
E
E
E
B
A
You,
okay
feeling,
there's
we
have
a
consensus
here
good
unless
there's
any
further
comment
with
the
clerk.
Please
call
the
roll
on
the
motion.
B
A
D
Chair
and
members
of
the
Planning
Commission,
this
item
is
relative
to
the
direction
that
you
gave
us
at
last,
the
last
Planning
Commission
meeting.
This
is
relative
to
the
recent
request
that
we
had
from
La
Sirena
villas
I'm,
offering
two
options
for
you.
If
you
would
like
to
pursue
this
option,
number
one
is
to
reduce
the
threshold
requirement
from
20
guestrooms
to
15
guestrooms
I,
provide
you
an
analysis
in
the
staff
report
of
approximately
how
many
properties
would
then
be
eligible
with
that
reduction
in
the
threshold
requirement.
D
The
other
option
for
you
to
consider
is
there
an
attachment
number
two,
and
that
is
to
remove
the
threshold
requirement
entirely
and
then
evaluate
restaurants
on
a
case-by-case
basis
under
a
conditional
use.
Permit
application
the
protection
that
is
still
in
place,
thereby
eliminating
the
threshold
requirement
is
that
under
the
conditional
use
permit
process,
it's
still
a
discretionary
review
where
Planning
Commission
could
either
approve
or
deny,
and
also
under
that
process.
We
also
look
at
things
such
as
parking
and
impacts
to
adjacent
property.
D
If
a
restaurant
were
to
be
added
and
so
I
would
offer
both
of
those
as
options
to
you,
I
will
confess
I
thought
last
time
we
could
make
the
public
hearing
requirement
for
this
meeting.
Unfortunately,
we
were
one
day
late.
It
would
have
had
to
been
submitted
on
April
the
25th
instead
of
our
meeting
date
on
the
26th,
so
I
would
have
to
notice
this
as
a
public
hearing.
Should
we
wish
to
make
that
change
to
the
zoning
code?
I
would.
B
E
A
A
E
Have
any
I
don't
have
a
report,
but
I
have
two
questions
or
one
one
one.
We
two
requests
last
time
when
the
downtown
came
to
us,
I
realized
afterwards
that
we
had
had
made
no
provision
for
the
way
the
block
b1
would
be
treated
by
the
applicant
while
they
were
on
hold
and
waiting
to
hope,
build
the
Virgin
Hotel
or
not
build
a
virgin
hotel
and
come
in
with
some
alternate.
But
there
is
a
site
and
there's
there
was
no
site
treatment.
E
I,
don't
believe
that
went
to
the
subcommittee
that
I'm
part
of
at
least
the
meetings
that
I
was
invited
to
of
the
joint
Planning
Commission
City
Council
Subcommittee
on
this
and
I
do
think
we
need
some
mechanism.
We
need
some
way
of
making
some
requirements
so
that
we
don't
just
see
an
ugly
temporary
fence
up
there
for
years
so
that
that
is
the
first
thing
and
I
don't
know
Flint.
If
there's
a
mechanism,
if
we
just
forgot
that
or
yeah.
D
I
believe
they
had
intended
to
use
the
same
fence
design
that
they
were
going
to
use
on
block
F,
but
I,
don't
think
that
was
explicitly
stated
and
it
doesn't
show
up
on
the
drawings
you're
correct
in
that.
Nor
do
I
think
that
it
was
discussed
with
the
city
council
subcommittee.
So
let
me
investigate
that
and
come
back
to
you
with
a
response
and.
E
Then
the
set
it
was
an
email
I
sent
to
you,
which
is
I.
Think
Lisa
had
had
a
request
to
tour
the
dream,
hotel,
the
adjacent
neighborhoods
and
the
dream
Hotel
site,
and
that's
something
I
would
like
to
do
as
a
commissioner,
but
I
think
it
might
be
better
if
it
was
organized
through
the
department.
I
will.
D
Ask
mr.
Dowd
to
step
in,
but
we
have
two
possible
options
for
you
in
terms
of
doing
that.
Number
one
is
to
do
a
special
meeting,
and
so
we
would
go
ahead
and
send
out
a
notice
and
then
you
all
could
attend
and
tour
the
property.
The
second
option
would
be
to
have
you
in
groups
no
more
than
three
of
the
Planning
Commission
members
at
a
time
in
either
option
it's
important
to
remember
that
you
are
not
taking
testimony
at
those
meetings
that
you
are
merely
visiting
the
site
and
observing
existing
conditions
and
mr.
I
I
The
only
other
thing
I
would
add
is
that
when
we
do
come
back
in
the
context
of
a
public
hearing
with
the
intent
of
taking
an
action
on
this
matter,
it
would
be
advisable
for
each
of
you
independently,
just
to
disclose
quickly
on
the
record
that
you
did
have
an
opportunity
to
tour
the
site
that
it
was
strictly
for
observational
purposes.
Only
and
the.
A
A
Listen,
we
did.
We
toured
much
more
in
firmly
to
the
new
would
like
in
hand,
did
take
a
lot
of
input
from
the
residents
and
discussed
with
them,
which
I
still
think
is
part
of
our
job.
Although
I
realized
that
the
attorneys
don't
like
it.
That
way,
we
have
everybody
has
that
in
their
background,
we
are
some
of
us.
Have
it
we're.
H
Going
to
do
this
I
feel
pretty
strongly
that
we
should
do
the
first
option
where
we
gather
together
as
a
group
and
publicly
notice
everyone
and
view
both
the
site
of
the
hotel
and
the
center
court
site.
It
is
going
to
be
exceedingly
difficult
for
two
or
three
commissioners
to
walk
the
grounds
of
center
court
and
not
engage
with
the
residents
there
and.
E
D
Of
the
things
I
would
caution
is
I
would
like
to
make
sure
that
testimony
is
also
offered
at
the
scheduled
public
hearing
of
the
item
that
I
don't
want
members
of
the
public
to
think
that
that
is
the
opportunity
to
give
it
I
would
encourage
them
to
attend
the
public
meeting
and
give
that.
So,
as
you
are
deliberating
on
the
matter
that
will
be
considered
as
part
of
the
testimony
that
you're
considering
at
that
point
in
time,
what
I
would.
I
A
D
D
C
D
E
D
Just
want
to
commend
you
all
for
getting
through
the
agenda.
Today
we
had
a
very
lengthy
agenda
and
only
four
members
of
the
Planning
Commission,
so
I
do
appreciate
you,
but
I
do
appreciate
you
moving
through
the
agenda.
We
got
a
lot
accomplished
and
I
do
appreciate
that
one
of
the
things
to
take
into
consideration
is
while
we
may
continue
items.
The
work
is
still
coming
into
the
planning
department,
and
so
I
really
really
would
dissuade
you
from
continuing
items
where
there
is
no
need
to
do
so.
D
There
were
some
emails
going
around
suggesting
that
would
be
perhaps
delay
action
on
some
of
these
items
and
again
that
just
creates
additional
work
from
staff
and
it
doesn't
stop
the
new
work
from
coming
in
and
so
again.
I
do
like
to
try
and
get
two
items
in
a
timely
matter.
Also,
there's
the
interest
of
the
public
that
we
have
an
agenda,
that's
published.
D
They
have
an
expectation
that
the
item
will
be
heard
and
that's
both
applicants
and
members
of
residents
who
want
to
testify
on
items
so
again,
I
appreciate
all
the
work
that
you
all
have
done
today
and
I
thought.
Your
discussions
were
excellent
in
terms
of
considering
all
of
the
things
that
we
needed
to
do
today.
We
got
through
a
lot,
and
so
again
my
thanks
to
you
all.