Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0531 P�INUTES PALt� DESERT PLAPJPJING COt�'MISSION MEETING TUESDAY - MAY 31, 1977 7:00 PM - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by Vice-Chairman Berkey at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Palm Desert Gity Hall . � II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III . ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner BERKEY Commissioner KELLY Commissioner READING Also Present: Paul A. Williums - Director of Environmental Services Ralph Cipriani - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner Sheila Gilligan - City Clerk IV. INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Vice-Chairman Berkey introduced Mr. George Kryder and Mr. Walter Snyder, the two newly appointed members of the Planning Commission. Mr. Kryder and Mr. Snyder accepted the Oath of Office as administered by Sheila Gilligan, City Clerk. The ne�v Commissioners were officially seated on � the Planning �ommission. Vice-Chairman Berkey welcomed them. V. SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN & VICE-CHAIRMAN TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERMS UNTIL SEPTEMBER, 1977. A. CHAIRMAN Vice-Chairman Berkey opened the floor for nominations and Commissioner Reading noiz�inated Commissioner Berkey as Chairman of the Planning Commission; Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. No further nominations were offered, and the motion carried unanimously. B. VICE-CHAIRMAN Chairman Berkey opened the floor for nominations for Vice-Chairman and Commissioner Kelly nominated Commissioner Reading; Commissioner Snyder seconded the motion. With no further nominations offered, the motion was voted upon and carried unanimously. Chairman Berkey noted that these positions would expire in September of 1977. VI. APPROVAL OF �9INUTES �,,,,. A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of May 3, 1977. Mr. Williams stated there were no corrections noted on these minutes. Commissioner Snyder moved and Commissioner Kelly seconded to approve the minutes of May 3, 1977, as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 31, 1977 Page Two VI . APPROVAL OF MINUTES (continued) B. MINUTES of the Planning Com�ission meeting of May 17, 1977. Mr. Williams stated that these minutes should reflect the excused absence of Commissioner Charles Reading. Commissioner Snyder moved and Commissioner Reading seconded to approve the � May 17, 1977 minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. VII . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Mr. Williams reported that there were written communications; however, they dealt with the items on the Agenda and would be addressed as a part of the presentation of those agenda items with the exception of an excerpt from the Los Angeles Times dated May 20, 1977, which had been forwarded for information. VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Berkey announced that prior to this meeting, the Commission had met in a Study Session for the purpose of clarifying the staff recommen- dations. No decisions were reached. Chairman Berkey then explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present. A. CASE N0. DP 07-77, PALM DESERT VEPJTURE, LTD. , APPLICANT Request for approval of a Development Plan Amendment to allow construc- tion of 23 condominium units as a part of the Shadow Mountain Resort �„ and Racquet Club, located east of San Luis Rey and south of Shadow Lake Drive. Commissioner Snyder left the meeting for this hearing inasmuch as he was an officer of the property adjacent to this project and did not feel it would be fair to participate in the hearing or vote on the issue. Mr. Williams reviewed this case pointing out that it was a request for an Amendment to the Development Plan to allow construction of 23 condominium units and maintenance building as a part of the Shadow Mountain Resort and Racquet Club. This request represents the fourth revision to the project that dates back to County approval in 1972. Mr. Williams reviewed the various revisions that had occurred since approval by the County. The original approval by the City was for 108 units, and after three revisions, it has been reduced to 97 units. The Amendment being considered covers 13 units proposed off Fairway Drive and 10 units proposed along the nor- therly boundary of the project. The hearing tonight is in regard to the single-story limitation for any building along the northerly boundary and further, the applicant is proposing to revise the design of the thirteen unit� which were previously approved off of Fairway Drive. Finally, the applicant is proposing to re-locate a maintenance building to the northerly boundary of the project which has resulted in the elimination of 17 over-flow parking spaces on the perimeter drive. The applicant is proposing to allow a 20-foot setback from the Fairway Cottage property lines � to accomplish add�tional open space between the property and allow the Fire Department access to the front of the units; to increase the setback from the lOth Fairway property line to the new building structures from 10 feet to a minimum of 15 feet. One-third of the structures now have a setback of 15 to 20 feet, the remaining frontage two-thirds is over 20 feet; eliminate one excess parking structure to allow for more landscaping; and finally, re- arrange the units to provide better protection from lOth tee duffers. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 31, 1977 Page Three Mr. Williams reviewed a letter from the Fire Mar�hall wherein conditions were set forth prior to any construction being permi�ted. He also re- viewed a letter from Shadow Mountain Golf Club setting forth conditions they would like eonsidered; a letter from Helen Faull Huntington opposing the development by Pa1m Desert Venture Ltd. due to increase in density in that area, traffic problems, and two-story buildings; a letter from the Fairview Cottages Association requesting modifications to the plans; a � petition from the homeowners in Fairview Cottages Association in opposition to the project; and finally, a letter from Southern California Gas Company indicating their ability to service the project. Staff recommended approval of the modified Amendment subject to compliance with the Conditions of Approval . Mr. Williams stated that in response to this correspondence and staff's analysis of these proposed amendments, the wall should be required as originally required by the County and that is masonry walls on the nor- therly, southerly, and easterly boundaries of the project. With regards to the 13 units off Fairway, staff feels that the proposed setback of 15 feet from the southerly boundary of the project and 20 feet from the easterly boundary is sufficient to adequately mitigate any adverse effects to the adjacent development. With regards to the two-story existing build- ings in this area, there is a two-story-12 unit building existing there now, and staff feels that limiting the proposed buildings to single-story would have little effect in terms of line-of-sight. If the Commission chose to accept the recommendation of the staff, that could be accomplished by amending Resolution No. 151 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 244. Mr. Williams pointed out that with regards to the 13 units along Fairway, to which most of the correspondence is directed, the applicant does have approval of preliminary design review of that portion of the project and it is previously shown as two-story. Commissioner. Kelly asked for a brief review of the proposed resolution. Mr. �'�" Williams responded that it would tie the project, with the excep�ion of the planning discussed at the last meeting, to the maps submitted at this meeting. It would delete a requirement for the wall on the northerly boundary. The new condition requires that to be installed under a new condition #16 and #20. Condition #13 speaks to the parking spaces originally proposed, the 17 spaces along the easterly boundary, and staff is requiring this to be increased to 25 spaces. Additional new conditions speak to walls, parking, and fire marshall requirements. Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. SKIP BERHORST, Aspen, Colorado, Vice-Chairman and Principal of Destination Resort Corporation and General Partner of Palm Desert Venture Ltd spoke to the Commission and addressed the following: He had had lengthy discussions with the Board and members of the Shadow Mountain Golf Club, He thought they had arrived at what they both felt were good solutions. They have a mutual agreement as to the various points they raised. These are the people who will be most affected by our development, and we feel we have worked with them for reasonable solutions like the wall and their privacy. Mr. Berhorst reviewed the points of the letter. He pointed out that what their development and the Shadow Mountain Golf Club had agreed to was different that what staff was recom- ;�, mending, and he was, therefore, in disagreement with staff. He proposed that instead of a wall between the two parking lots, it would be beneficial to have chain-link fence that would be hidden by oleanders. In addition, they would agree to provide a decorative fire gate across the fire access road into their parking lot. They have agreed to this and feel that it is a good solution. The set- back and re-design of the 13 units has been well described by staff. He felt alternative methods of security should be considered along the 13 units. A wrought-iron fence, 6 feet high along the property line facing south would be an acceptable solution to both of us, and then carrying the fence along the property line southwest and northeasterly to about midpoint and then starting a masonry wall that would then connect with the existing entrance sign. The heavy � Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 31, 1977 Page Four growth of trees along that property line creates a nice buffer between the two Fairway Cottage homes next to the property. Both those houses orient to the golf course and not to our d�velopment. The buffer should be more than adequate not only for our units but for the Fairway Cottages and that a wall about mid-point out is the best way to solve the privacy problem and also allow the house that is farthest out to have views across the southwest. � Mr. Berhorst reiterated that the people most affected by their development had agreed to the compromises he had covered, and this solution seemed the best. He requested the Commission's consideration of amending Condition No. 16 and No. 20 to incor- porate the concepts written in their letter to Walt Snyder. He asked regarding Condition No. 19 for clarification. Mr. Williams explained that no permit would be issued as this condition was written until that wall was constructed. Mr. Berhorst requested that this condition be amended to prohibit construction of only the 10 units without the wall . He also stated that they would agree to pave Club Circle Drive as a prior condi- tion to the construction of the 10 units. He concurred with all the other conditions. Chairman Berkey asked for input in OPPOSITION to the project: MR. BILL BIZZEL, 46-087 Portola, addressed the Commission representing the Fairview Cottage Association. He specifically noted paragraph 4 of his Board of Directors' letter which addressed the requirement they desired on the proposed buildings to be constructed along Fairway; specifically that the height of these units be reduced to single- story to conform to all perimeter buildings in the balance of the �' project. He pointed out that his group had met with the people from Palm Desert Venture, Ltd. , and that they had leaned over backwards to reach agreements. However, he stated tMeir continued disagreement with density and height of buildings was sti11 in effect. He further objected to the location of the carports that run in front of their Unit #13. He concluded by opposing Fairway Drive being used as the main entrance to the Shadow Mountain Resort and Racquet Club indicating a severe traffic problem for them. He also expressed concern over the security of their property; if it is not sufficient now, what will it be like when the project is completed. MR. DON SLAUGHTER, Attorney with Schlecht & McCullough, Pa1m Springs, addressed the Commission stating that he had just purchased a lot on Shadow Lane and wondered if the proposed tennis courts were to be lit. Mr. Williams stated that it was his understanding that the courts were to be unlit, but if the Commission so desired, they could make it a condition of approval . It has not been a condition up to now. Mr. Berhorst presented rebuttal stating that one of the problems they have is that their development is not yet totally completed and the ultimate design is not yet there. At present, the entrance to the development is off Fairway Drive; yet, the ultimate plan shows the main entrance off San Luis Rey. The traffic will then be minimized on Fairway Drive. With regard to the carport being as close to Unit �, #13 as stated, Mr. Berhorst presented pictures showing trees that wauld act as a buffer there. He did clarify that the tennis courts would be unlit. He concluded by saying that they were not normal developers. They had a management company that would stay on the project after completion; they would be a part of the community, and thus concerned with community problems, adjacent properties, etc. � Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 31, 1977 Page Five Commissioner Readinq asked why in the rest of the project, on the perimet�r all the way around with the exception of the 13 units, they were proposing to put in here now, they are all one-story. He stated that this doesn 't seem to conform to the rest of the pro- ject. The applicant responded that the plan that was approved last May had a two-story building in that particular area. The principal � reason for that was the existing twelve-unit building which was a two-story building and the conference building next door which was more than a one-story bu�lding. From a design standpoint, they felt that was good and what they have done with this amended plan is to improve the design over what was there before; to keep that density and drop to a one-story is like creating a "ghetto". Commissioner Reading asked if the applicant would be willing to compromise with 1/2 of those being one-story and the other half two-story to satisfy the Fairview Cottage Association. He asked if they would be willing to re-design it. The applicant stated that they had attempted to satisfy the desires of the one-story adjacent homeowners by having a one-story building with a 20 foot setback which is more than required and pulling that building in, solves the prob7em. Commissioner Reading asked about the people on the other side of the golf course. The applicant responded that there is an existing two-story building and changing to a one-story would not have that great an effect. Commissioner Reading stated that he would like to see additional parking, � the one-story buildings, some re-design to conform to the rest of the project which in turn will make the neighbors to the east, north, and south much happier. He suggested a continuation. Commissioner Kelly stated that at this time the new conditions to this Amendment would satisfy parking and walls. She felt that the wall should remain masonry as stated in the conditions. She also felt that Condition No. 21 should be included, that the tennis courst should be unlit as Condition No. 22, and also one-story buildings on the perimeter. Commissioner Kryder stated that he too felt that the one-story would be an advantage, but these people have been working on the premise that they have had approval for two-story buildings, and it seems somewhat unfair at this stage of the game that it has to revert to a one-story situation. He stated that he would agree that perhaps there could be a re-design or some type of a compromise to please both parties to some extent. He stated that he felt that the real disadvantage appeared to be to one Fairview Cottage than to the rest of them. He indicated his preference for seeing the project re-designed to incorporate some of the ideas presented at this hearing. Chairman Berkey stated that it was evident that there had been some good cooperation on the part of the developer, and he thought that from the comments from the other Commissioners, it would be well to continue the � hearing to the next meeting. � Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 31, 1977 Page Six Commissioner Reading suggested that, as well as he has gotten along with the Gelf Club, to work with the Fairview Cottages and the other residents that we had correspondence from to come to a conclusian that will be satisfactory to everybody. - Commissioner Reading moved to continue the hearing to the meeting of June 14, 1977. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion carried by � the following vote: AYES: KELLY, KRYDER, READING, BERKEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: SNYDER The applicant addressed the Commission again indicating they obviously � had time schEdules to meet and certain financial commitments to their lender. He asked for resolution of the problems tonight. Chairman Berkey indicated that the disagreements were far too great to be resolved without further staff consultation with the applicant. The applicant agreed to comply with the recommendation to work with adjacent property owners to resolve all problems. B. CASE N0. CUP 05-77, RICK SEIDNER, APPLICANT Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a 1,240 square foot restaurant in the Harmon Building and a Variance on the parking re- quirement from 19 spaces to 8 spaces on a parcel located at the north- � west corner of Portola Avenue and E1 Paseo. Mr. Williams presented the staff report stating that the proposed use is com- patible with adjacent development. The primary concern was that of parking. The intention of the applicant is to provide 8 parking spaces when 19 are required. Though the reduction in spaces is considerable, staff believes that the applicant's request for a Variance deserves strong consideration due to the exceptional �ircumstances applicable to the subject property. The proposed restaurant lies within the Core Area Commercial District of the City where a growing number of businesses and professional offices are located. As these activities increase, the number of pedestrian traffic will increase, thus reducing the necessity for the additional parking spaces. In addition, strict interpretation of the parking requirement would deprive the app7icant of the opportunity to operate a restaurant as the possibility of creating additional parking in the vicinity does not exist. Staff be- lieves a need for the proposed use exists and that the use should be permitted and the parking variance granted as long as the applicant is able to meet any minimum requirements other governmental departments specify. Mr. Williams pointed out, however, that the proposed restaurant may not be feasible unless a second exit is provided as required by the Uniform Building Code. Chairman Berkey declared the Hearing open and asked the applicant for input. RICK SEIDNER, 74-160 Velardo Road, addressed the Commission stating � that he had nothing further to add unless the Cor�nissioners had any questions. Chairman Berkey requested input in OPPOSITION to the project and none was offered. Discussion followed among the Commission as to how many parking spaces were available in the surrounding area. MR. JULIUS HARMON, 38-900 Island Drive, Rancho Mirage, addressed the Commission indicating that there were 65 spaces and that he was the owner of the property in question. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 31, 1977 Page Seven Chairman Berkey called a 10 minute recess at 8:15 p.m. to allow staff time to determine exactly how much parking was available. The meeting was reconvened at 8:25 p.m. Mr. Williams reported that the records indicated a total of 50 spaces on the premises. � Chairman Berkey declared the Hearing closed. Commissioner Kelly asked now that it was understood that there were 50 spaces, how wauld it change the variance from the 19 spaces down to 8 spaces. Mr. Williams stated that they would provide 5 allocated spaces and still meet the parking requirements for the remainder of the building. The building is laid out for one space for each 250 square feet, so for 1,240 square feet or the proposed size of the restaurant, 5 spaces would be required. Commissioner Reading moved, and Commissioner Snyder seconded, to approve the Conditional Use Permit (05-77) and the Variance by Planning Commission Reso- lution No. 244, subject to comp7iance with the Conditions of Approval . Motion unanimously carried. C. CASE N0. CUP 05-76, JOHNSON & BARBATTI , APPLICANTS Request for an Extension of Time for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a parking lot in an R-3(4) zone and a Variance for setback �,,,,, requi rements. Mr. Williams presented the staff report indicating that the Commission, by Resolution No. 142, granted the applicant a Conditional Use Permit to allow a combination sit-down and take-out restaurant in the C-1,S.P. zone on property generally located on the north side of Palm Desert Drive and west of Portola Avenue. In addition, the same resolution granted a com- mercial parking lot on property generally located at the northwest corner of Alessandro Drive and San Jacinto. The pizza parlour never materialized which would have resulted in the expiration of the Conditional Use Permit and related Parking Variance on May 4, 1977. The applicant is presently seeking an Extension of Time for the Conditional Use Permit relative to the parking only as a precise future use has not been determined by the applicant. For this reason, staff feels it would be more appropriate to deny the present request for an Extension of Time for the Parking Use Permit and Variance and determine the validity of the request at a later time when the applicant has decided on a specific use. Mr. Williams pointed out too that the possibility existed that the applicant could construct an additional building on the site which would have an overalT effect on the parking re- quirements. Chairman Berkey declared the Hearing open and asked for the applicant's input. MRS. IRA JOHNSON, 45-800 Apache, Indian Wells, addressed the Commission stating that she did in fact have plans for the property which she had �"" not had time to submit to the Department of Environmental Services. She indicated that she would be operating an interior design center on the property along with the already existing antique store. Chairman Berkey asked for input in OPPOSITION to the extension and none was offered. Commissioner Reading moved to continue the matter to the meeting of June 14, 1977, to allow the Department of Environmental Services to review Mrs. Johnson's plans and make a recommendation to the Commission. Commissioner Kryder seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. � Minutes Ralm Desert Planning CorrQnission May 31, 1977 Page Eight IX. OLD BUSINESS None X. NEW BUSINESS � A. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED C.V.C.W.D. WATER LINE EXTENSIONS Mr. Williams reporte� that this was a proposal from the Coachella Valley County Water District to construct 1,000 lineal feet of water line in S�ate Highway 111 from Deep Canyon Road to Shadow Hills Road and 550 lineal feet of water line in Sage Lane between E1 Paseo and Tumbleweed Lane. 1"he staff had found the project proposed to be constructed by the Water District to be in compliance with the adopted Palm Desert General Plan and recommended approval by Planning Commission Resolution No. 245. Commissioner Ke17y moved, and Commissioner Reading seconded, to approve P7anning Gommission Resolution No. 245; motion unanimously carried. XI . DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. REVIEW OF CASES ACTED ON BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AT THEIR MEETING OF MAY 10, 1977. Mr. Cipriani reviewed Case No. 45C - Bank of America; Case No. 67MF - Claude and Ronald Sullivan; Case No. 70MF - Silver Spur Association; and Case No. 26SA - Imperial Sign Company. � Mr. Wexler of the 6ank of America project addressed the Commission indicating that he had not been notified of the proposed changes. However, when Mr. Cipriani explained that they dealt mainly with the location and type of trees to be utilized, he waived any ob- jections. Commissioner Kelly moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 246, approving the Design Review Board actians of May 10, 1977. Commissioner Kryder seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. B. REVIEW OF CASES ACTED ON BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AT THEIR MEETING OF MAY 24, 1977. Mr. Cipriani reviewed the folloring Design Review Board cases with the Commission: Case No. 48MF - Affiliated Construction Company Case No. 27SA - Harmon Center Case No. 58SA - Roy William Carver Case No. 72MF - Bricker Construction Company Case No. 71MF - Don Gittelson Case No. 73MF - Alfred H. Cook Case No. 53MF - Laszlo Sandor � Case No. 20C - E1 Paseo Properties Case No. 68MF - Palm Desert Venture, Ltd. Case No. 62MF - Wendell Veith Commissioner Reading moved and Commissioner Kelly seconded to remove Cases No. 58SA and No. 73MF from the Resolution and approve the remainder of the cases by Planning Commission Resolution No. 247; motion unanimously carried. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 31, 1977 Page Nine CASE N0. 58SA - Signs for a Commercial Structure for ROY WILLIAM CARVER: Mr. Williams pointed out that the sign plans submitted by Mr. Carver were not in conformance with those approved by the Design Review Board. They are, however, smaller. The Commission discussed the feasibility of the smaller signs, but concluded that it was the responsibility of the Design � Review Board. Commissioner Reading moved and Commissioner Snyder seconded a motion to return Case No. 58SA to the Design Review Board and advise them of the changes in the sign plans� motion unanimously carried. CASE N0. 73MF - Preliminary Site, Floor, and Elevation Plans for a 5-Unit Apartment Complex for ALFRED H. COOK Commissioner Kelly advised that this case had been removed from the original resolution in that she wished to abstain from voting because of a possible conflict of interest. Commissioner Kryder moved and Commissioner Reading seconded to approve Resolution No. 248, approving Case No. 73MF as presented. Moti�n carried with the following vote: AYES: Kryder, Reading, Snyder, Berkey NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Kelly �"' XI . DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Discussion of the Draft Regional Housing Assistance Plan prepared by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. Mr. Williams noted that the drafts presented to the Commissioners were not complete and that some of the xeroxing was illegible. He therefore recom- mended that the matter be continued to the meeting of June 14, 1977. The Commission so agreed. B. C.O.D. AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Discussion of the Preliminary Draft of the College of the Desert Specific Plan. Mr. Freed reviewed the first preliminary draft of the various elements of the C.O.D. Area Specific Plan and outlined those recommendations contained in the plan regarding land use, circulation, housing, public facilities, and canser- vation, recreation, .and open space. The Planning Commission members were each presented with copies of the draft report for analysis and discussion at sub- sequent Planning Commission meetings. The Commissioners raised various questions concerning several aspects of the Plan, particularly the survey of housing taken at C.O.D. Staff pointed out � that there was still a great deal of work to be done in finalizing the material presented so far, particularly with regard to comments from other City depart- ments such as Engineering, Building & Safety, and Finance. The final major chapter that will be presented in the future will deal with the implementation programs outlined for this plan. A page-by-page analysis of the document was then set for the meeting of June 14, 1977. . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 31, 1977 Page Ten XII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. CARL MEISTERLIN, 73-611 Highway 111, spoke to the Commission and �`� • expressed continued concern over the zoning of his property near the ,���� College of the Desert. He indicated that it had been in an "S" zone ��` for a long time and that the building costs were going up and up. �,.;�' � He stated that the Palm Springs Medical Clinic was anxious to build �''r% their medical facilities in that area along with proposed condominium�� development and he questioned whether or no� the staff was going to �� recommend that they be allowed to build the medical facilities. �; �, Chairman Berkey pointed out that about 3 months ago, it looked like it would be a year before anything would be resolved on this, but it had progressed more rapidly than anticipated and it now looks like recommendations will be forthcoming soon. Mr. Williams further clarified that staff will be ready to make positive recommendations by July. He further stated that staff would propose to make a positive recommendation regarding the construction of the medical facilities at thQ meeting of June 14, 1977. MS. GAIL SHEAR, 2560 Star Road, Palm Springs, addressed the Commission with questions regarding the C.O.D. Plan. She indicated that she was in attendance at the meeting as a part of a school project for the College, but she wondered whether or not the Plan discussed included any improvements for Santa Rosa Street, San Nicholas Street, etc. She felt they were not very attractive. Mr. Williams pointed out that the overall plan was to improve those neighborhoods by zoning and architectural approval and that it was definitely going to be an improvement. � Ms. Shear also asked about provisions for parks and was assured that the preliminary plan did include various concepts of public parks and recreational facilities. XIII . COMMENTS A. City Staff Mr. Williams welcomed the two new members of the Commission. B. City Attorney None C. Planning Commissioners Commissioner Reading asked staff what had happened to the idea �f having Wednesday a-fternoon meetings to replace the one evening meeting that was used as a Study Session. Mr. Williams indicated that he had waited to present this matter to the Council until the new members of the Commission had taken office. Both Commissioner Kryder and Commis- sioner Snyder agreed that Wednesdays at 1:00 p.m. would be convenient � for them. Mr. Williams stated that he would proceed with presenting this matter to the City Council for approval . Chairman Berkey also welcomed the new Commissioners, indicating that the Council had made a wise choice in their appointments. � Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 31, 1977 Page Eleven Commissianer Kelly asked staff if it was not normal procedure to notify applicants when changes had been made with their plans. She felt that it had been somewhat embarrassing when the Bank of America did not know of the landscaping changes when their plans had been reviewed. Mr. Cipriani noted that it was normally standard procedure to notify the appTicants. However, Mr. Johnson's recommendations regarding the land- � scaping were made after the Design Review Board reviewed the case since he was absent from their meeting. The Design Review Board had instructed that Mr. Johnson's recommendations be presented at the Planning Commission meeting and that their final approval was contingent upon any recommenda- tions Mr. Johnson might make. Staff believed the recommendations made by Mr. Johnson to be so minor that notification of the applicant appeared un- necessary. Commissioner Kelly also asked whether or not it would have been wise to put a one-year limitation of the proposed restaurant use in the Harmon Building, thus allowing the Commission to review the traffic flow, parking problems, etc. , after that period of time to see if there were any adverse effects. Mr. Williams advised that this could have been done; however, the Commission does have the option to call the case for review in a year if problems do occur. Commissioner Kelly invited the students who had been in attendance at the meeting to join the next meeting when the C.O.D. Plan would be reviewed in greater depth. '�+ XIV. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Reading moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Snyder seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. �._ i�`� {-� P, � ' `, � �\ � �--� � �� PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY � ATTEST: � � GEORGE B RKEY, CHAIRMAN /mj