Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-03 Draft Minutes MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY – JUNE 3, 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tanner called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Limont led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Van Tanner, Chair Sonia Campbell, Vice Chair Connor Limont Mari Schmidt Members Absent: None Staff Present: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Senior Management Analyst Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the May 20, 2008 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the May 20, 2008 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4- 0. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2008 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent actions from the Study Session where a proposed community center and pool was discussed and from the regularly scheduled May 22, 2008 City Council meeting. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR (see page 12-13) None. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. PP 07-12 – DAVID NELSON, Applicant Request for approval of a preliminary building site for a Hillside Planned Residential property located at 73-340 Upper Way West (APN 628-130-008). Mr. Stendell explained that this item was continued from the May 20, 2008 agenda due to wanting to give appropriate notification to the neighbors surrounding the project. He stated that the applicant, Mr. David Nelson, was the owner of a five-acre parcel along Upper Way West in the Hillside Planned Residential zone. Historically, they’ve had many discussions about proposed alternatives for building sites for this five-acre parcel, and this was a particularly difficult case to locate a building site. The owner purchased the property in 2002 and immediately noticed that the proposed pad area #1, shown on the map, was a fairly flat area and it looked like at sometime in the past someone might have done a little grading there, probably prior to the city’s incorporation, because it is extremely flat. In 2007, the City updated the Hillside Planned Residential zone. This property falls on a ridge; there’s a ridgeline that continues on down to the bottom of the flats adjacent to the storm channel. The applicant has always felt that he could possibly develop pad location #1 in a way that would be consistent with Palm Desert’s Hillside zone; however, staff was always discouraging of developing on a hillside ridge. Sometimes the best 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2008 option was not to develop on the ridge at all. Staff had never been thrilled about proposed pad location #1. Mr. Stendell explained that the Hillside Planned Residential zone offers applicants an “optional preliminary approval” section which basically states that applicants may propose standards of development for the property, including building site location, access roads and proposed densities. It was a very preliminary discussion and that was why it was under the Miscellaneous section on the agenda. It was not a public hearing; it was not a vesting right to the property once this discussion was held, however, it would give the applicant some certainty where the applicant could build his house, because the current Hillside Planned Residential zone was very strict and they wanted to make sure they were encouraging people to propose developments consistent with the zone. Throughout the years, Mr. Stendell stated that he has been on the property many times looking at many possible solutions. Using the grading plan, he pointed out the ridge. The entire property was very steep. The north side looks down to the city and the bulk was on that side. The other was going in the southerly direction toward Stone Eagle and kind of up to Cahuilla Hills in the County. He showed it on the aerial map. He also pointed out the main road, Upper Way West, and said that the map provided in the Commission packets indicated that there could be a potential for a pad in a location back toward the southwestern corner of the property. Again, it was a very preliminary look. Staff identified it as a possible building site, and given the context of the Hillside Planned Residential zone, he found the area to be most likely tagged for a potential building site. It could potentially impact the routing of the road; it could potentially impact several things, but at this point, staff was charged with the appropriate place to build the house and this exercise was more of a reaffirmation that they didn’t want a house on the ridge and that the applicant should explore ideas that would be in areas not visually impacting to the city below. When they were talking about the least amount of impact, that was behind the ridge. Whether or not the applicant could feasibly get the home in there was still up in the air, but at this point, staff was saying it could possibly be back there, and through this optional preliminary approval section of the ordinance, that was where staff was recommending that the applicant proceed and look at building the house in that location. Mr. Stendell said he was happy to answer any questions and reiterated that the staff recommendation was to basically reaffirm that proposed pad location #1, while it might be the easiest option, was not suitable because 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2008 it was on a ridge and at this point staff was recommending that proposed pad area #2 be the only location that staff would support as a proposed building site. He noted that the applicant was also present if they had any questions. Commissioner Limont stated that she walked the property with Mr. Stendell and it was exactly as he said. Proposed site #1 would be out simply because it was right on top of the ridgeline and was visible from everywhere. Site #2 as you come down the embankment was steep, but was feasible. They would have to move some dirt, but the Carvers moved a fair amount of soil to build their home. That was just a comment. Commissioner Campbell asked for the distance between the two roads, since it was almost a triangular pattern and asked if there would be a road in back of the house and whichever way he wanted to face. Mr. Stendell said there were actually three roads right there; the third was kind of a small little one that goes down to a pad that has nothing built on it. Commissioner Campbell said they were talking about Pad #2, so the road curves and then there was the other road right there. Mr. Stendell wasn’t sure what the distance was between the two roads. Chairperson Tanner asked which road they were looking at to adjust, the one to the north or to the south. Mr. Stendell answered that it was unclear at this point. This was such a preliminary discussion and it would be up to the applicant to define those things. They were just defining the area that could be built on. Chairperson Tanner asked how much acreage there was on the site. Mr. Stendell said it is a five-acre parcel and he pointed out the boundaries on the display map. There were two more parcels to the east that go down to Calle De Los Campesinos, which runs along the storm channel. Commissioner Schmidt noted there were block long rectangles on the map and asked if they were five-acre parcels. Mr. Stendell said yes. She noted above it to the north there were two parcels, 2.5 acres each. Mr. Stendell explained that the current standard, which had been the standard for some time, was five acres. There was no further subdivision, but what had happened was there were several parcels split prior to the current five-acre standard. Commissioner Schmidt noted that she, too, had visited the area. For the area to the east of proposed Pad #1 and the u-shaped area, she asked if staff was saying it was unbuildable, very steep and unbuildable, and lower. Mr. Stendell said that anytime they were talking about that area, they were talking about being in the direct line-of-sight to the valley below, and not to discount the people that live in the hillside, but if they were 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2008 talking about impacting the least amount of people possible, they didn’t want to put it over there and it probably wouldn’t work because it was extremely steep going down there. Commissioner Schmidt asked about the elevation of the existing home on the next parcel to the west and northwest corner. Mr. Stendell said that the house seen on the aerial, if it was on the ridge, while they could see it, occasionally it was on the right side of the ridge, because from the valley floor there were only a few specific locations where you could really look up and find it because it was on the side of the ridge that was lower. He thought there was probably a five foot difference between the two areas. The existing house was a little bit lower than Pad #1. Chairperson Tanner noted that Pad #2 was significantly lower than Pad #1 because of the ridgeline. Mr. Stendell concurred. He said it was also very steep going down that way and could be a very difficult pad to develop, but it was possible. Commissioner Limont asked for confirmation that staff was asking the Commission at this point to say for exploration purposes on behalf of the owner that this was the area they would encourage him to look into. Mr. Stendell said that was correct; the section was “optional preliminary approval” when dealing with such an impacting zone as these, and they definitely wanted to get direction before spending the kind of money it required to have the plans drawn up for a submittal. Chairperson Tanner asked for clarification on the meeting procedure and deferred to the City Attorney. Mr. Hargreaves noted that it was a non- hearing item; technically anyone who wanted to address it should have spoken up during Oral Communications, but that segment allows the Planning Commission to defer those comments to right now, so he suggested that they invite anyone here who wished to address the item to step up and be heard. Commissioner Schmidt asked if a motion was needed. Mr. Hargreaves said no. Under the circumstances, since this was a non-public hearing item, Chairperson Tanner asked the applicant to come forward to discuss his view of staff’s discussion. MR. DAVID NELSON, 72-595 Beavertail Street in Palm Desert, stated that he was the owner of the property. When he purchased this property with the intent to build in area called location #1, prior to purchase, he met with Phil Drell, the Director of Planning at that time, and he confirmed that site location was basically the most suitable place to build. He also confirmed that it met all city zoning 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2008 ordinances at the time. As Ryan stated, since that time there had been numerous down-zones which would not allow him, apparently, to build on location #1. It was his contention that under the new zoning ordinances, it had left him with absolutely no feasible location to build. He requested the City to identify all the site locations where he would be allowed to build. The site location #2 was the only site location where they said he can build. In his professional opinion and experience, site location #2 was completely unfeasible and unrealistic to build on. First, the grade was too steep at this location. Even if it could be possible, it would result in huge engineering costs, not to mention the enormous scarring on the hillside that would be required. Second, the road, underground water main and overhead utility lines would all have to be relocated, again, at a huge expense. Third, at this site #2, it has access and utility easements that all run through it and because they were held by third parties, that required either getting permission to abandon or relocate these easements from these third parties that he has no control over. As he stated to the Planning Commission prior to the down zoning of the property, it was his contention that with these new zoning ordinances, there was absolutely no feasible location for him to build and site #2 was absolutely no exception. He thanked them and was available for questions. Besides Pad #1, which Mr. Nelson wanted to build on, and he was not happy with Pad #2, Commissioner Campbell asked if there was any other location on his five-acre site. Mr. Nelson reiterated that under these new zoning ordinances, there was no feasible place for him to build. Chairperson Tanner asked for any other testimony. MR. MIKE MCCORMICK, 47500 McCormick Drive, informed Commission that they’ve lived up the hill there for 30 years. He and his wife have raised four children up there. Site #2 was absolutely crazy, because if they looked at it, and they drove it, and the only way it would work was to bring that road up on McCormick Drive, which was his road. The way it has always been was they’ve always had their privacy. They’ve lived up there all these years because it was private. Now that they were making it a public road, everyone coming up would see their house and they would also 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2008 see them and hear them. He didn’t see how feasible this could be for building. Originally they had it on Pad #1, and he met with David many times, and at first he didn’t want someone to build up right behind him, but he knew David would have built a home there that would blend into the mountains and he would have built it so they didn’t see each other. That to him would be the spot. Proposed Pad #2 was absolutely crazy. To him it would just ruin what they’ve lived up there all these for. He was sure hardly anyone at the meeting had been here 30 years in the desert and that would absolutely kill it. Chairperson Tanner asked Mr. McCormick if his home was on the northeast or southwest side of Pad #1. He pointed it out on the map and said it was at the end of the wiggle road. Chairperson Tanner clarified that was the northeast. Looking at driving Upper Way West and where they proposed the home, Mr. McCormick said people would have to take Upper Way West to his road and continue it to go behind the proposed site. So all this traffic going up and down the hill would now be right next to his house. There were people who didn’t even know he lived there, but now they would. They would see his house every day as they made it up to the top of McCormick Drive and around that corner, and would now see his home. Chairperson Tanner reiterated that Mr. McCormick’s home was below the turn. Mr. McCormick said if they looked at Upper Way West and eliminated it, there was a little tiny canyon and that would be the only way to go around it. They would have to carve a road up into his road and everyone now would be visible and he would see this traffic all day long. They chose to live up there because of the privacy and 30 years ago people thought he was absolutely crazy for buying up there. But he knew what they had up there was absolutely beautiful. Notice-wise, he said that this was the first notice he had received. He had probably only received one other notice in the last five 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2008 years and it was for a 20-acre parcel in the Cahuilla Hills area. If it wasn’t for one of his neighbors calling to see if he had gotten a notice, he would never have known it was going on. Commissioner Schmidt said she was assuming that the horseshoe- shaped road was the road that goes to Mr. McCormick’s home. He said yes. Commissioner Schmidt asked for clarification as to it being his road. Mr. McCormick said it was McCormick Drive. It was listed through the city and does go up to his property. Commissioner Schmidt noted that it was a private road, mostly owned by Mr. Nelson. Mr. McCormick concurred. There were no other comments. Chairperson Tanner asked for any additional testimony. MR. BILL CARVER stated that he and his wife Toni reside at 72275 Upper Way West. He said there was absolutely no reason the Commission should be hearing this whole problem, because it was solved. They all had a site that worked that they all agreed was a perfect site. But the City Council did not want to do a lot line adjustment that would have made this site buildable; one that Mr. Nelson showed them all, they all walked it, and it was a perfect site and all worked. All they had to do was a lot line adjustment to take the hilltop property and make it part of the City property. He explained that the City owns a five-acre parcel that abuts this property to the south. That is a piece of property he happens to have an easement across for the driveway that goes down to their home, which is next to the canyon known as Ramon Creek. All the City had to do, which they did for another neighbor of theirs, was a lot line adjustment. Mr. Stendell clarified that what Mr. Carver was explaining was that the City owns an adjacent piece of property. The applicant proposed a lot line adjustment, a trade of equal property, to essentially take the south property line and turn it 90 degrees. Using the map, he showed the ridge and the valley. He said the applicant proposed a lot line adjustment that would allow him to build in the valley and that was not an option at this point. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2008 Mr. Carver said that was his point. They had it worked out among themselves up in the hills. First of all, they believed in the hillside ordinance. It was an important part of where they live and they try to have all their homes so they exceed those requirements, if at all possible. But when Mr. Nelson came in and they had the closed hearing to decide about transfers of property, for some reason the City Council turned it down. He didn’t know why, but it was a perfect answer to all the things going on today. Mr. Nelson was now stuck with the problem of having to find that the City had given him no other alternatives but to say that the City had now down-zoned the property to a point that he should have to take it through some kind of a legal solution. They didn’t need that kind of thing. There were ways this could be done and they were just crazy if they didn’t try to work them out. Commissioner Schmidt asked how long ago it was that the City denied what was being proposed. Mr. Carver said less than six months. He said he felt very sorry for Mr. Nelson. Mr. Carver’s lot was 7.5 acres of property and they couldn’t get to it unless they bought an easement from the property owner that was adjacent to them, because Upper Way West did not come close to their lot. So they bought an easement from that property owner, who subsequently sold that five-acre parcel to the City. He could just imagine saying to the City Manager to tell the Council that he wanted to buy a $15,000 easement across the City’s property so he could get to his. He would have been thrown out of there so quickly because they own the property. With the City owning the property, it seemed they were unwilling to try and work with anyone up there. These were the old government five-acre parcels that have the 30-foot easement around all of the four sides of it, which was supposed to be where the roads are, and none of them were there. So they were all kind of loose up there. They have easements, and right by prescriptions, and all kinds of different things that happen up there that are not standard to the rest of Palm Desert. MRS. SUZANNE MCCORMICK, 47500 McCormick Drive, stated that in the past several years, the traffic has considerably increased. Another home was built and another that had a part-time resident became a full time. Children grew up and they have more drivers going up and down Upper Way West. She was a victim of a head-on accident on Upper Way West. It’s a single-lane road and 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2008 to make this change would make it worse. She would even like to see about making it a two-lane road. Chairperson Tanner noted that it was said that six months ago Council went into closed session regarding a lot line change. He asked if staff could tell the Commission a little about the reason behind that, or if that was something they could do. Ms. Aylaian explained that anytime someone brings forth a proposal to buy or sell property or that would involve a change of property rights for City property, it was discussed in closed session and was covered by the Brown Act when discussing terms and conditions. The discussions were not made public and were not part of the public record and were not available. With the suggested lot line change, Chairperson Tanner asked if City property was associated with the lot line change. Mr. Stendell answered yes. Chairperson Tanner reiterated that it did affect Mr. Nelson’s and Palm Desert’s properties. Mr. Stendell stated that it was a proposal for an equal amount of land to be swap. Chairperson Tanner asked for Commission comments and suggestions. Commissioner Limont indicated that this was preliminary as far as guidance goes. Mr. Stendell concurred. He said this did not vest for the property owner and did not put the City into a corner where they had to say yes to this site. He confirmed that it was the first step. Ms. Aylaian clarified that it did provide some protection to the property owner, so that if they approved one site or another, when the property owner goes back to Architectural Review and Planning Commission, they could not then say it should be put somewhere else. With that understanding, Commissioner Limont said that when she looked at this and where they were supposed to go and make a decision, her thought was they couldn’t possibly approve or tell Mr. Nelson to go out and start looking at site #1; it wouldn’t work with the ordinances or anything else. That was a dead-end street. If they were looking at the two proposed sites, she wasn’t saying it was desirable or anything else, but of the two, lot #2 was the one to look at. Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Nelson had owned this property since 2002. Mr. McCormick built his home there and has had his property there for all this length of time and he was able to build. Just because Mr. Nelson was not able to build at the time and he decided to do it now, and the ordinance was changed nine months ago, she didn’t think he should be chastised for not being able to build where he wanted to build. The ordinance was just changed six months ago and she thought the City 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2008 should go ahead and make some kind of adjustment on the property they own so Mr. Nelson could build the home of his dreams where he wanted to. She was suggesting that Mr. Nelson should stay with whatever he wanted, Pad #1. Mr. Stendell stated that Pad #1 was a separate pad that didn’t involve the property transaction with the City. That was pad #3 and wasn’t even an option at this point, as described by Ms. Aylaian. Commissioner Campbell felt they should then find another pad that’s more suitable, but if Mr. Nelson’s not happy with Pad #2, and Mr. McCormick said it was not really buildable, so if Pad #1 was not suitable and Pad #2 was not suitable, then Mr. Nelson should have an option to choose another site. Chairperson Tanner asked if that was a suggestion they could make at this point. Mr. Stendell stated that he was not prepared to recommend any other sites. It was hard enough to look at the site and even find two because it was so steep. All staff was willing to recommend as far as an appropriate location was Pad #2. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that they had Mr. Carver there, Mr. McCormick living there, all those neighbors there, and they know the ground, the mountains and hills and they would probably be a help for staff to help Mr. Nelson find another location. Commissioner Schmidt asked about the date of the aerial photo. Mr. Stendell thought they were updated in 2007, but didn’t know what month. He thought it was less than a year. Commissioner Schmidt noted that there were four dwellings within that area. Mr. Stendell said there were four in the immediate area, as well as a fifth and maybe a sixth above that one; not many. Not knowing why the City Council chose not to swap properties, which would be very helpful, Commissioner Schmidt was not about to break the law, the ordinance of the City, by granting Pad #1. She was not inclined to do that. What was before them was to adopt the recommendation of the staff for the proposed Pad #2 and encourage that one progress. She wasn’t at all swayed by a private road that ultimately was going to have to be straightened, widened or fixed in some way. She really felt they should accept staff’s recommendation and encourage everyone to work toward Pad #2 and see what could come of it. Chairperson Tanner could feel Mr. Nelson’s pain; he bought the property in 2002, and not knowing the circumstances why he didn’t elect to build when the opportunity was there on Pad #1, he wasn’t looking toward that, he was just saying that in a period of time, a quite excessive period of 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2008 time, the ordinance changed and eliminated Pad #1 from building. Pad #2 as he heard from the testimony, was unacceptable also, as far as they were concerned unless there was a way to mitigate and change some of the things that were going to be necessary to build on Pad #2. He couldn’t make judgment, because they didn’t know the facts on why the City didn’t exchange land with Mr. Nelson, and they had been asked to make an optional preliminary approval on pad site #2. Action: Chairperson Tanner said he had not heard a motion, but he would make the motion that with the encouragement of the City and staff to come to terms and agreements that are favorable, not just to Mr. Nelson, but the neighbors that were going to be affected by this potential pad site, and that’s what they were being asked to do. In all fairness to Mr. Nelson and the neighbors, again, staff needed to work with Mr. Nelson and also the neighbors to make this an acceptable pad site, if it could be built upon at all. Commissioner Limont seconded the motion. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that they were saying that they should go ahead and take staff’s recommendation for proposed site #2. Chairperson Tanner said yes, with continued efforts by City and staff to make this a five-acre parcel that would be acceptable for Mr. Nelson to build on, and also the neighbors. Commissioner Campbell clarified that they were talking about Pad #2, and not asking them for other changes or to go look for something else. Chairperson Tanner said that was correct. There was no other discussion and Chairperson Tanner called for the vote. Motion carried 3-1 with Commissioner Campbell voting no. Chairperson Tanner informed Commission that there was an additional item for consideration, Parcel Map Waiver No. 08-194. It had been recommended that they postpone this to the July 1 meeting. Ms. Aylaian explained that this was an item brought forward quite recently by the Public Works Department. There was a request that it be added to tonight’s agenda. She was advised that could only be done in the event that it was urgent. The urgency consideration in this event was simply that there weren’t any items on the calendar for the second meeting in June. Postponing it to the first meeting in July might pose a hardship on the applicant, but she didn’t have all the details. Commissioner Schmidt asked if it was the application at Ironwood. Ms. Aylaian concurred. Commissioner Campbell asked if they needed to make a motion to add it to the agenda. Commissioner Schmidt asked if they could do that. Chairperson Tanner asked if they needed to make it an agenda item or continue it to the July 1 agenda. Mr. Hargreaves said they could either make it an agenda item or let staff bring it back July 1. It would typically be under Consent Calendar. Commissioner Campbell said that as long as they have a meeting in July, it could go on the Consent Calendar in July or they 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2008 could add it to the agenda and approve it tonight. She thought they should just add it to the agenda and make it a Consent Calendar item. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, adding Case No. PMW 08-194 to the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR - Continued A. Case No. PMW 08-194 – PAMELA C. SCHAEFER, BILL DEER AND IRONWOOD OWNERS ASSOCIATION XIII, Applicants Request for approval of a lot line adjustment to add 20 feet to Lot 1 of Tract 15366 to allow for expansion at 73-640 Jasmine Place. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving Case No. PMW 08-194. Commissioner Schmidt noted that it was a 20-foot lot change and asked for what reason. Mr. Bagato explained that it was a portion of the Ironwood Homeowners Association lot, the common area, that was being bought by the homeowner for future expansion of their home in Ironwood. Typically, it comes to staff and is scheduled for the next available agenda, but it didn’t come in from Engineering until yesterday. Given the fact that there wasn’t going to be a second meeting this month, they wanted to add it to the agenda. Typically they were ready before the agenda was prepared. It was a pretty standard lot line procedure; they were taking over a common area in Ironwood. It was not going to be seen by the public and was between the Association and the neighbor, but they could anticipate a future expansion of the home within that area. There were no construction plans yet and the Commission typically wouldn’t see the construction. Commissioner Schmidt asked if staff was recommending that they move on it tonight. Mr. Bagato answered not necessarily tonight, but noted there wasn’t a second meeting in June and the applicant wanted it sooner. Commissioner Schmidt asked for the identity of the applicant. Mr. Bagato referred to the front page of the Parcel Map Waiver memo and replied Pamela Schaefer, Bill Deer and Ironwood Owners Association XIII. Chairperson Tanner noted that it was basically adding 20 feet to Lot #1 to allow for an expansion. This was something that was common in a gate- guarded private country club. Mr. Bagato concurred. Commissioner 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2008 Schmidt asked why it needed the Planning Commission’s approval. Mr. Bagato explained that under the Subdivision Map Act there were certain waiver requirements that staff felt were consistent with zoning that didn’t require a public hearing; however, they still had to be put onto an agenda as a Consent Calendar item. Staff reviews them when they are submitted to make sure they weren’t doing something the City wouldn’t be happy with, then Engineering says when they are good to go and they go onto the Consent Calendar per the Map Act. Chairperson Tanner asked for and received clarification that it didn’t require notification of the neighbors. He called for the vote. Motion carried 3-1 with Commissioner Schmidt voting no. IX. MISCELLANEOUS - Continued B. Discussion of Summer Meeting Schedule Commission and staff discussed the summer meeting schedule. It was announced that there wouldn’t be a meeting on June 17 due to a lack of agenda items. It was also determined that there was no quorum for the August 19, 2008 meeting. Commissioner Schmidt noted that she planned to be gone August 5, but if it was a real problem, she could wait. Mr. Bagato indicated that if a housing project wasn’t ready by August 5, he hoped to schedule it September 2. The next meeting would be July 1, 2008. Commissioner Schmidt asked Mr. Hargreaves if there were three Commissioners present, if the voting needed to be unanimous or majority. Mr. Hargreaves explained that it was typically a majority of the quorum, so if they had three present, two could carry the motion. He confirmed that with only two Commissioners, they could not have a meeting. Action: None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported on the actions of their last meeting. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2008 B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont stated she would give a report at the next meeting. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Schmidt informed that there was no meeting. D. PARKS & RECREATION Chairperson Tanner outlined the discussion items and actions of the last meetings. XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. ___________________________ LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary ATTEST: _____________________________ VAN G. TANNER, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 15