Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21 Draft Minutes MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY – OCTOBER 21, 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tanner called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Van Tanner, Chair Sonia Campbell, Vice Chair Russ Campbell Connor Limont Mari Schmidt Members Absent: None Staff Present: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner R. Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the September 16, 2008 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, approving the September 16, 2008 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent October 9, 2008 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2008 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. Reports and documents relating to each of the following items listed on the agenda are on file in the Department of Community Development and are available for public inspection during normal business hours, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, (760) 346- 0611. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. ZOA 08-392 – CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to the City Council for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment removing Section 25.15.130, Optional Preliminary Approval Procedure, in its entirety from the Hillside Planned Residential Zone. Ms. Aylaian explained that this item addressed a request put forth by the City Council for a change to the current Zoning Ordinance as it deals with hillside planned residential development. Currently there are three places throughout the city with Hillside Planned Residential District zoning. One is at the south end of the city on the eastern side of the Canyons at Bighorn. The second area encompasses Stone Eagle and Cahuilla Hills within the city limits, as opposed to some of the Cahuilla Hills area located in the county territory. The third area is behind Painters Path. The purpose of the Hillside Planned Residential District is threefold. First of all, it is to encourage minimal grading and disruption to the natural hillside areas. Secondly, it is to encourage architecture and landscaping which blends with the natural terrain. And thirdly, it is to protect the undisturbed view sheds and features seen in the hills. As part of the 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2008 ordinance as it now reads, there is something called an Optional Preliminary Approval Process” which reads: The applicant may choose to submit information and request preliminary approval from the planning commission which will assign the appropriate development standard option, determine density, identify building sites, access roads and locations. No permits shall be issued until final approval is obtained. This final approval that would be required after the preliminary approval includes review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council. So this process was intended to streamline the front end of what will be a relatively lengthy process for any project proposed in the Hillside Planned Residential District. Unfortunately, we have recently had a couple of applications and requests for identification of sites through the Optional Preliminary Approval that have not come to a successful resolution. This particular clause in the ordinance had never been applied for or tested until recently. Recently we had two cases put forward, neither of which really came to a successful resolution. As such, the City Council observed that the process itself was not particularly effective and, therefore, doesn’t benefit anybody to have the applicant go through this. Any time an application is submitted to the Planning Department and is processed through the various staff reviews and approval, onto the Planning Commission and to the City Council, there’s a certain investment of time on behalf of the applicant and staff, and the Commission and Council as well. Not only time, but in many cases there are a great deal of resources that are applied for a particular application. And if it is ultimately not going to result in a successful outcome or an outcome which is meant to be a streamlining of the process, then perhaps it is not a wise investment of time and resources on behalf of the applicant or behalf of the City to process it. What they’ve found is that for development in the hills, any project proposed is going to have nuances peculiar to its particular site that don’t apply to any other site and it’s going to have a great deal of complexity involved in it. As it goes through the full processing, rather than just the optional preliminary process, going through the full process there is a need for the applicant to provide topographical maps, locations of cut and fill, quantities of the cut and fill, and circulation for vehicles to the site. They need to provide architectural drawings in plan view and in elevation, and in sections they need to provide landscaping drawings, hydrology reports, percolation data and all kinds of detailed engineering information that would allow the Planning Commission and the City Council to make a meaningful evaluation of the proposal. When they tried to streamline it by 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2008 getting kind of a shortcut to the answer or shortcut to the eventual outcome, they found it wasn’t effective because it is difficult to make a meaningful evaluation and meaningful decision on abbreviated information. Therefore, the Council requested that this particular clause be eliminated, or be removed from the ordinance as it now stands, and that is what was before the Planning Commission for consideration. The notification of this proposed change in the ordinance was sent to all property owners in the Hillside Planned Residential District so that they were aware of this. In response to that notification, three letters were received, and one telephone call. The call was an inquiry for information and resulted in neither support nor opposition being expressed. The three letters that were submitted were distributed to the Commission. Ms. Aylaian said she would briefly address a couple of issues that were brought up in the letters. Starting with the letter from Marilyn and Richard Fromme, the Frommes indicated some frustration. They said, “There was some hope remaining that maybe a staff member would give preliminary approval to develop a property and give some hope to a prospective buyer or to a property owner.” She thought that reflected a not complete understanding of what is proposed in the change or would exist in the current ordinance. The current ordinance did not provide in any case for a staff member to give any approval, whether preliminary or otherwise. It is always required that the approval, even a preliminary approval, goes through the Planning Commission and then appealable up to the City Council. There was no removal of decision making at a staff level basis because currently there is no staff level decision making. Ms. Aylaian said the Frommes also expressed concern that this could constitute a taking of their property. Staff did not believe this was the case because it does allow developers or property owners to develop their properties. It requires that they go through a comprehensive analysis and investigation of exactly what they propose and it does allow for a very high level decision making or involvement on behalf of the Planning Commission and the City Council as they look at the exact details of what is proposed and they can truly make a meaningful review of the proposal and can suggest revisions, modifications, or conditions on a development, but it did not prohibit a developer or property owner from developing their property. The second letter was from Slovak, Baron and Empey, an attorney firm that represents several property owners in the area. The one thing Ms. Aylaian wanted to address was that they indicated that the purpose of the letter was really to confirm that if the zoning ordinance is amended, that amendment would not apply retroactively. She confirmed that was the case. The two cases that have been processed previously, on one the City 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2008 Council did in fact preliminarily identify a site. That preliminary identification still stands and the applicants, in order to develop on their property, will need to go through the complete submittal review and approval process, so they will need to submit the full information she indicated earlier. It was a complete comprehensive package and that would then go through the Architectural Review, the Planning Commission and the City Council for consideration. The third letter was from Janice Wood and Ms. Wood had a number of concerns: she addressed opposition to this proposed change, but she also addressed a number of concerns. Most of them seemed to be relative to the adoption of the current hillside ordinance, which was passed in March of 2007, and her letter was distributed for the Commission’s review. Many of the concerns would be reviewed by staff -- this letter was just received this afternoon, but they did not appear to be directly on point with what is being considered by the Commission today, which is whether or not this optional streamline process should be eliminated. That concluded the oral staff report and Ms. Aylaian asked for any questions. Commissioner Schmidt asked when someone is granted this preliminary approval, if there was any limitation to the time it is valid. Was it for two years or forever? Ms. Aylaian said there wasn’t a specific limitation called out. Typically with other approvals a permit has to be pulled within one year or the approval becomes invalid. She wasn’t sure if that applied here. Mr. Hargreaves noted that there was nothing within the ordinance itself that would limit it. Typically, when they go through the process that might be one of the conditions. They didn’t have anything else like this in the zoning ordinance, which was a preliminary optional pre review. It was intended to give some guidance to kind of direct the process going forward and it turned out not to be a very efficient way of handling it. Because they had never really approved one, he didn’t know how it would work out if they did. Commissioner Schmidt asked if it would pass from owner to owner. If for instance this was granted to one owner, then that owner sold the property, would it continue on. Mr. Hargreaves said yes, typically entitlements do; the type of entitlements that Planning Commission grants are property specific. Commissioner S. Campbell asked if this would be a pretty costly procedure for the applicants. They do all of this, come in, and could still be told they don’t have a pad where they could build their home. What happens then? Ms. Aylaian said depending on the applicant, the cost 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2008 varies. They have seen two applicants that have made it through the process and one she thought actually put in a great deal of time and money into architectural renderings, and model building it, and has thoroughly analyzed the site. The second one took a more abbreviated form of essentially writing a letter saying please identify a site. They had done a little bit of investigation, but probably not the same investment of money. She indicated there was actually a third request that was received recently and again, that individual has retained an out-of-state architect and put some time in architectural renderings and a couple of studies. She thought it was fair to say that yes, even the streamline process represents an investment of both time and resources, either in man power if they do it themselves, or in hiring a consultant, to go through a process that could ultimately not be productive for them. That being said, it was also fair to say that going through the full process would be more costly than the abbreviated process, but going through the abbreviated process first of all was no assurance of approval of the final project, nor did it circumvent the need to eventually go through the expenses associated with going through the full process. Mr. Hargreaves clarified his prior response. This would be a preliminary approval so it did not grant any particular rights in the sense that a normal site plan would. They could grant them preliminary approval for a particular site, go through the process, and then decide it didn’t work and have them back up and doing something else. So even an approval, while it helped direct the process, it wasn’t a guarantee that they would ultimately be able to build on that site. Also, if someone goes through a process like that with their property, ultimately the City has to identify a site that they can build on or the City has to buy the property. They don’t just have the option of just telling them no. It was a question of how they get there, how they explore all the options to find what the best arrangement is for developing that property. This particular avenue proved to be a dead end. Chairperson Tanner asked him to repeat what he said about the City being responsible for buying the property. Mr. Hargreaves explained that under the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, and the State Constitution actually, the City has to allow people to make an economically viable use of their property. The City cannot restrict a property in such a way that physically renders it valueless. So they couldn’t just tell them they couldn’t build anything up there. They do have wide latitude in terms of restricting development to meet objectives, but ultimately they have to provide some avenue to get a reasonable return on that property or they have to buy it. Chairperson Tanner asked if it had to go through the process of being presented to Planning Commission, passed, and then went to Council and was rejected, or if it comes to 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2008 Planning Commission, gets rejected, they have a right to appeal and then it goes to Council and if they object to it, then the City has to buy the property. Mr. Hargreaves said that if the City Council ever got to the point where they said there was just no way they would ever allow them to develop anything on this property, if the City Council said that, it would pretty much be on the hook to buy that property. Mr. Hargreaves also indicated there is a provision in the City’s code that kind of addresses this that basically says if you could show that the zoning ordinance applied to their property doesn’t allow them to make productive use of their property in any manner, then they could override any aspect of the zoning ordinance. Basically it was a waiver. If they bump up against something in the zoning ordinance that basically says you can’t develop your property, then you can get that overridden if they can show they don’t have any economically viable use. That’s kind of a safety valve in the whole process. Like on a hillside, if they say they can’t build on a ridgeline or anything else, if they could come in and show that there’s just no feasible way to develop without building on the ridgeline, then there is a waiver provision in the ordinance. Commissioner Limont said that because of the ridgelines and the difficulty in building in the Cahuilla Hills, this process isn’t helping because they really do need to know how much earth has to be moved. In other words, they couldn’t just take a guess because they weren’t looking at a flat pad, they weren’t looking at a neighborhood, and they weren’t looking at certain grades that go with a specific street. Ms. Aylaian said yes, to make a good decision they need greater information than is required for an optional preliminary approval. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or OPPOSITION to the issue before the Planning Commission. MR. DAVID NELSON, Beavertail Street in Palm Desert, stated that he owned land in the area that would be affected by this change. He was present to speak out against removal of this ordinance. Due to the already vague nature of the Hillside Ordinance, if they remove this section of the ordinance, it would create an unnecessary and undue burden on the land owners, causing them to try and guess where the City would like the home to be built. It could cost enormous amounts of money to submit all the plans that would be required without this ordinance, all without knowing whether or not it is even the location that the City would want the home to be built on. That simply did not make any sense since with this ordinance a site location could be determined prior to the land owner having to incur that enormous expense. So again, he asked 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2008 that they leave this ordinance in tact as it is a logical step in determining where a land owner may build their home. He thanked them. MR. DEL GAGNON, Palm Desert, stated that he lives in Section 30 in Cahuilla Park, not Cahuilla Hills. He said he only had a vague understanding and asked what was being changed. Ms. Aylaian explained that they would be deleting a process in the ordinance. The process would have given preliminary approval of a site to an applicant when they provided minimal information. They were removing that. After that preliminary approval was given, they would still have to go through the full submittal and approval process. Maybe that site would ultimately be approved, maybe not. But what they would be doing was removing that optional preliminary approval and saying that anybody needs to go through the full application process in order to develop in the hills. Mr. Gagnon asked if there was a reason they needed to change it. They still had to go through the process. Ms. Aylaian replied that they found that with the applications they received, after going through the scrutiny possible from the information given for an optional preliminary site approval, did not effectively streamline the process and get the applicant closer to a project approval then they would have if they had not gone through that. It did not seem to be an effective tool. Mr. Gagnon said that as difficult as it is now to develop anything, if somebody wants to develop, he thought they should leave it alone if it’s working and leave it like it is and let them go through the process and what happens happens because he lives up there and they are all protected by the City and it was very hard to develop and build anything without going through strict regulations and rules, and that’s okay in his estimation. He thanked them. MS. JANICE WOOD, 72-375 Upper Way West in the Cahuilla Hills area located within the city limits of Palm Desert. She opposed the adoption of the amendment. She said the hillside ordinance frankly for her had been a pain in the neck as it had been to many of the property owners. She was going to throw her notes to the winds tonight because much of it wasn’t applicable from what she understood, so she would skip over a lot of it, but she was sure they had read it anyway regarding Connor Limont’s escrow with her property and the situation that resulted because of it. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2008 She felt that City organizations should strive not only on having their way, but they should also strive for fairness: fairness to the property owner and fairness to the citizens. She didn’t feel this fairness had been projected to them; she didn’t feel it had been projected to the McCormick property, to the Kuykendall property, the David Nelson property; it has not been fair. And they paid big money for their property and then they find that there are restrictions that have been imposed since they purchased their property, that they cannot do what they set out to do with their properties, there is something wrong here. If they were to put themselves in her place, they would be standing where she is standing now. That was something she wanted to get off of her chest. She knew that the Fromme letter was mentioned. It was mentioned that the City should be under obligation to buy this property in the event that no building could take place. She asked by saying that if they meant that if the ridgeline ordinance is in effect and it was against the ridgeline ordinance, if it was against the ordinance’s legal status, did that mean they could go ahead and say to them sorry, the ridgeline ordinance is in and you can’t build period and we don’t have to buy your property because there is a ridgeline ordinance. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Hargreaves explained that what he intended to say was that if the ridgeline ordinance for whatever reason rendered her property completely unbuildable, and he wasn’t sure they had seen that situation, but assuming her property was all ridgeline and there was nothing else she could do, then there is a process in the code whereby the prohibition of building on the ridgelines could be waived to make her property buildable. Ms. Wood asked even after this ordinance is in effect that staff was trying to get passed tonight, it could be built. Mr. Hargreaves said yes. This really just eliminated a potential sidetrack in the process, but it didn’t change the developability of any particular piece of property. Ms. Woods said they’ve had a lot of meetings here and each time there is a little bit of a change and the changes get tighter and tighter. So forgive them as property owners if they get a little paranoid when there is a change coming about. She thanked them. MS. MARY HECKMAN GRIFFIN said she has an elevated lot in Bighorn on Summit Cove and she had been out of town, so she needed a clarification of the ordinance because she didn’t 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2008 understand it as it was explained to her. She asked if there was a preliminary approval process before building. Ms. Aylaian explained that currently in the ordinance there is an optional preliminary approval process that seeks to streamline the permitting process. What they’ve found is when people have tried to use it, it hasn’t streamlined the process, it hasn’t gotten through any easier, so they were suggesting the removal of that process from the ordinance. Even in the existing ordinance had they gone through the streamline process, they would then have to back through the full process when they were done with the streamline process. So what they were suggesting is removing the streamlining process so that they just go through the full process for approval of a project. Ms. Griffin asked if that was any different procedurally then if they owned a lot on the flats like at Portola and Haystack. Ms. Aylaian indicated that hillside homes and hillside developments are treated quite a bit differently from development on the flat areas. Ms. Griffin asked in what way from a procedural point, what was submitted when, who looks at it, etc. Ms. Aylaian explained that it goes through different levels of approval. For a home on a hillside, you have to submit more information and it goes through the Architectural Review, the Planning Commission and the City Council. Depending on the zoning of a home in the flats, it might be as simple as being approved at the counter by staff when you walk up. If you were doing something different, it might have to go to Architectural Review. Ms. Griffin stated that her lot happens to be on a lot that faces away from the city of Palm Desert, so it wasn’t in anyone’s view and was kind of hidden behind. She purchased the lot three years ago and was concerned about changes. She supported the ideas and thoughts that when you buy something, and she bought the property as an investment and never was going to build on it, so when she sells it, she wants to make sure she can at least capture what she put into it. To purchase property and then have the rules change, that’s why she wanted clarification. She asked if there were stricter guidelines than three years ago. Ms. Aylaian explained that there are different guidelines and invited Ms. Griffin to talk with staff about her particular property because some of the properties in Bighorn are different because some already have existing 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2008 pads constructed that get grandfathered in. The decision tonight by the Planning Commission wasn’t final. This would be a change to the municipal code which would have to go to the City Council for review and action. They would have two different readings on it, so she would have time to come in, talk to staff, and find out the specifics for her particular parcel. If she still had concerns, she could express them to the City Council. Ms. Griffin asked what kind of complaints or dissatisfaction was received that made them change the ordinance. Ms. Aylaian explained that it was at the request of City Council that the ordinance be revised, and it was the observation by staff, as well as the City Council, that the streamlining process was not effectively streamlining anything. Ms. Griffin asked if things were getting approved that shouldn’t have been. Ms. Aylaian said no; as of yet, only two formal cases have been brought forward and neither of them had reached fruition. Ms. Griffin thanked them. She said they drove from San Diego to kind of hear what she couldn’t understand in the letter and apologized for being late. There was no one else wishing to speak. Chairperson Tanner closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Limont agreed with staff. She thought they headed into this, staff, Planning Commission and City Council, with the best intentions, but the difficulty is that it feels like it is a step that is not benefiting anyone. They have landowners who are spending their time without getting a solid result. The Commission was spending time in trying to decipher what could or could not be built without any inclination of what the design was going to look like, what the grading was going to entail, that type of thing, and then they send it on to Council and it hasn’t made it through Council. It just felt like a step put in with the best intent, but it wasn’t working well. As with most processes in the City, someone comes in with a plan that folks can see and say okay, this is going to be how it sits on the hillside. She agreed with staff on this. Commissioner R. Campbell also agreed with staff on this. He thought it became a waste of time for both the applicant and the City and a waste of 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2008 money. If they get the preliminary approval and have to start all over again, he thought it was a waste and supported the change. Commissioner S. Campbell disagreed. Mr. Nelson came in front of them. If he chose a pad and went through all the costs and came in front of them and they still didn’t approve it, she thought they should be able to come to an understanding or approval. There were only four Commissioners when it came before them, so it always seemed to be a 2-2 vote, but she thought it should stay as it is, have them come in front of them and she was sure there would be a site somewhere on their piece of property that they would have the approval to build on, and then they could go ahead and go through the process of architects and so forth. She wasn’t in favor of changing it. Commissioner Schmidt thought it was a tough issue because she thought it was intended to show a property owner who had an idea, give them an opportunity to run that idea by the City prior to getting into soil testing and all the rest of it that is required, and yet was very serious about planning a development, particularly in the hillside. But she didn’t think it really worked. She had not been involved in all of the cases, but there is an ability to take an option on a site that is very controversial and very difficult to build on and run it by the City and get kind of a preliminary okay and then sell the property. That was why she asked the question with that caveat attached to it. She had never known of other cities that have this process in the valley here. Ms. Aylaian wasn’t aware of any cities. Commissioner Schmidt indicated that if they had been caught up in a change, Mr. Hargreaves explained that there is a grandfathering process and also an extraordinary circumstances process to waive certain things to let someone build or they would purchase the property. She knew that Council didn’t want this to go on, and she was quite certain staff didn’t, and she didn’t see the need for it, so she was in favor of eliminating it. Commissioner Schmidt read the hillside ordinance and asked for the location of the no building on the ridgeline section in the ordinance. Ms. Aylaian said it is in 25.15. The first definition was for a hillside ridge and then in 25.15.030 3-F prohibited building across a ridge. Commissioner Schmidt thanked her. Chairperson Tanner was also opposed to the proposal. He did it with hesitation, but at the same time he was looking at the residents of Palm Desert and the potential cost to residents if they put this into the actual planning stages. He heard that the two times staff has come before them and asked them for the optional preliminary approval it had been difficult for staff to pick out the pad site, and he understood that, but he also thought that staff was qualified to do it and this was what they were asked 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2008 to do and what they should do. And to give them a site to take to Council and have Council approve it, and then they could actually start their work in progress with the architectural design and go through the normal process. He understood that the hillside ordinance was created because they are in a very unique area here and they do need to desperately protect the views, but at the same time he thought they needed to protect the interest of those who bought in the hills. To go through the money exercise they would have to, and then to bring it to Planning Commission and have it fall outside of their pleasure, they would be spending a tremendous amount of money and then they would have to go back and do it again. So he knew it created more work for staff, but he thought they were qualified to do it with the help of the owners of the land. They might have to spend a little money to do it, but they wouldn’t have to go through the entire process. So again, he was not in favor and would vote against the passing of the request. He asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Tanner, to leave the ordinance as written. The motion failed on a 2-3 vote (Commissioners R. Campbell, Limont and Schmidt voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairperson Tanner and Commissioner S. Campbell voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2489, recommending to the City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 08-392, which deletes Section 25.15.130, Optional Preliminary Approval Procedure, in its entirety from the Hillside Planned Residential Zone. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairperson Tanner and Commissioner S. Campbell voted no). IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner S. Campbell noted that the next meeting was October 22, 2008. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2008 B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE No meeting. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Schmidt summarized the discussion items. D. PARKS & RECREATION Chairperson Tanner said it was just updates on the actual parks and their condition. XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Tanner noted that the next meeting would be November 18, 2008. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. __________________________ LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary ATTEST: ______________________________ VAN G. TANNER, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 14