Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0107 M I i�JTES PAl_M DESEkT PLANN I NG COMIPII SS I ON MEET I NCi 7LIESDAY - J�IUF�tY 7, 19$6 7:�)0 P.M. - C I V I C CENTER COIJhiC I L CHAMBER 7:i-S1O FRED WARING DaIVE �.r � � � �t # # �i �+ # fi� �t � � � � � � � � ?t # # # # � � � Nil STllp'i �:F�5I1:�!V WA� NFi 1i F'Rl.�-iF�' �I�� THI- r�rF i tNi;. I. CAL� TO �I�k l=:ha�rm•.an f;rites ca.l ]��i tne a�Pet�.ng tr� order at 7:i��; p.rr:. II. FLEDGE OF ALLEGIAK:E f:nmmissi�ner [i���n� !.P_ar.i in th� n)edne �t a3 i.eoaan�e. III. R�L CAI.I_ M�mhPr=_, r'rPsent: B�_�tor�i i:rites. i"�:hai.rman Bon finwn� Ri�.-hard Ertaoo�i ,Jim R��harri=_ Ralph woor+ Memr,�r=, Hh�,�nt: hlonP irr�. �;t�ft F'ra,�+nt: .:;t.PVP tim�th ilave trwin ,.InP 1;auat.i,h Fh i l i.�re 1 1_ �tan 5aaia ���f1V�� hionroe lV� APPRilVAI OF MI��yU7E��: i'�,nsid�rat.i�n �+ r.n� I�Pc�mbar 17. i.'-�,�,�� mi.ni_itPs. Actio�: Mnve�7 hy i:c�mmis�i�ner I�oams, _�econcied by (:�mmissi.oner Rirharns, annrm:ing t.he mtr��.ite= nf peremher 1?, i'?,?`� �s =,uhmittad. I,ar�rieci 4-i�-] (�.ha i rrnan 1.r]tP5 ah.�ta i ner_i d�_iP t�� ah�P..nr� ;�t tnat meet i nn, l V. Sl�IMARY OF COIINC I L ACT I ON Mr. �irr��th o�iti inen tn� ?rtli��5 ot the �.-.o�_mc-i l from its meetinn of I'�Premher 1'=�, 1.9;=:`�. - � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1986 VI . CONSENT CAIENDAR � NONE. VII. PUBIIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. PP 85-39 - SANBOFtN AND RYLEE, Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and precise plan to allow construction of a one story, maximum 18 foot, 77 room senior citizen housing development on three acres lor.ated at the northwest corner of Catalina Way and San Pascual Avenue. Mr. Drell addressed the issues of concern discussed at the last mPeting. Commissioner Wood expressed co�cern over the parking and affordable rent. Mr. Drell replied that the parking was dealt with in the original staff report and stated that the project contains the requisite amount �f parking. Mr. Orell explained that the affordable units were conditioned in the resolution. He noted that it was an expensive service to adjust to at an affordable rate and felt that one alternative would be a regular senior citizen housing pro,ject for � active seniors near the senior center. Mr. Drell felt it would not be unusual to approve a proJect prior to the actual development. agreement completion a�d used One Quail Place as an example, where staff came back with a development agreement specifying details of the affordable program at a later date. Chairman Crites requested clarification on a positive action from the ccxnmi ss i on, not i ng that. the proposa l cou l d not go forward unt i i that r_ondition was met and the commission wouid review the completion and meeting of that requirement. Mr. Drell complied. Commissioner Richards requested r.larification on the procedure of approval of a resolution without a condition that was to be added at a later date. Mr. Drell explained that as in One Quail Place, it took about one or two months after the approval of the precise plan to come in with the exact mechanism to implement the affordable housing requirement. He noted that basic guidelines for affordable requirements were outlined in the ordinance. Ne explained that details of how implementation would take place have not been 2 ri MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANN[NG COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1986 � established at this time. He felt it would be helpful if the commission could determine acceptability of the site plan so that further discussion could concentrate on the affordable requirements. Cortimissioner Richards felt that when the commission dealt with One Quail Plar_e, the commission knew who they were dealing with, what was used for guidelines, could see examples in other cortmunities, and had more data. He felt the issue of affordability dealt with different guidelines regarding income structures and felt that it was a separate issue that should not be attached to this project, but- handled before it. Commissioner Wood concurred and felt the affordability issue should be resolved and cortmission presented with a complete package. Chairman Crites asked staff what the advantage would be for commission to apprave the site design, but refused to act pending the resolving of this partir_ular issue. Mr. Oreil stated that staff would like some official action for confirmation that it was an acceptable site plan and elevations. Chairman Crites why staff would like a confirmation at this meeting. Mr. Drell replied that cortxnission was known to change its mind in the past and felt the applicant should know if the plans were acceptable in order to proceed. �"" (:ommissioner Richards felt that the reference to One Quail Place was a completely different subject and that the proposed was a complete unknown and the only similarity that exists was the change of zone and upgrading of density, and were not dealing with people 75 years old and limited visible incomes. He stated that the project dealt with services in which commission was not aware of quality, intensity or cost and stated that i t was not 1 i ke One Qua i 1 P 1 ace, wh i ch was strictly apartments. Chairman Crites asked counsel if there was a way for cortmission to signal a positive or affirmation of the physical design and layout of the proposed project without approving the precise plan. Mr. Erwin answered yes and stated that assuming the cortmission would go through the development agreement process fo� the affordability aspect of the pro,ject, which does require public hearing before the planning cortmission and city council . Mr. Frwin stated that it was potentially possible for the planning commission to indicate concurrence with the design and layout of the project by minute motion and merely reopen and continue the public hearing to combine the public hearing on the development agreement which addresses the affordability issue for a combined public hearing. 3 �.n MINUTES PALM DESERT PtANNING COMMiS510N JANUARY 7, 1986 3 i Commissioner Wood stated that he had no problem with the legal part � of the discussion but signaled agreement with Commissioner Richards. He felt that regarding One Quail Place, cortmission knew the type of facility and they knew what they were voting on. He felt you could not equate an apartment compiex with a convalescent facility. He did not like committing to half a project and having to come back and commit to the other. He felt staff was trying to paint cortmission into a corner and were trying to get something out of the commission at that time and corm�ented that he was personally not really sold on this pro,ject anyway. He stated for the record that the commission has a right to change their opinion and cortmented that if a man can't change his opinion he's pretty closed minded and stated that week to week month to month cortmission recefves a lot of information and stated that commission has a right to do that. Chairman Crites asked if commission had any issues concerning the design, parking, elevations, or landscaping. Commissioner Richards stated that he did not have any problems with the conditions, but had a problem with the fact that before them were real estate developers that were bringing a facility to them where cortxnission would grant some very nice changes and had yet to hear from the actual management of this facility. He noted that the applicants were in discussion with a firm that manages 12,000 of these types of units. He indicated that he would be inclined to be more favorable � toward this project if a lease or agreement with that facility be � absolutely tied to the granting of these kinds of de�sities. He felt the cortxnission was dealing with a first of a kind and wanted to tread lightly when making these types of changes. He felt that. before commission made this type of judgement commission should hear from them and have some sort of lease arrangement or an agreement between the developer of the project and the ectual management people. He stated that the site location and amenities were fine and that he ,just had a problem with who would run it and for how long. Chairman Crites asked if the commission had any concerns regarding the physical design. Cortxnissioner Wood stated that he had one other concern regarding the parking facility. He asked that staff or the developer elaborate on this. He expressed concern regarding the number of parking spaces provided and the possibility of a different clientele in the future and a conflict with the nurt�er of parking spaces provided per unit. Mr. Drell stated that in the table of the original staff report the code refers to a minimum age of 62 and that the applicant would be held to for this approval and noted that the applicant could not just change his mind and start renting to yaunger than age 62 without approval from the planning commission and 4 j � M I NUTE S PALM OESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1986 �.,r the parking requirPment for that category is one space per unit and that is what is being provided. Cortxnissioner Wood asked if staff had anticipated off-street parking for patient visitors. Mr. Orell answered that the standards in other cities is something between .5 to 1 and indicated that ours was set at that high range and noted that it was not a convalescent hospital , but an independent living congregate care facility for ambulatory people who are healthy, no convalescence, but for heaithy seniors. Chairman Crites summed up that there were two issues for commission to deal with: meeting the affordability requirement for senior citizens and the guarantee of management of this facility. Commissioner Richards felt that the developer knew the concerns of commission and felt it would be fair to postpone the majority of this. He noted the issues of affordability for someone 75 years old and felt that there would be plenty of applicants that would meet the affordability range. Ne stated that the city would have to rnake the decision (that should be decided by the council ) to determine who gets the rights to get something cheaper than someone else when ali people are equal . He did not feel the commission or planning staff should make that decision because it is an economic benefit that either will be given or taken away from one or a�other parties. He felt regarding the rt�nagement that the developer might be more r diligent to comP up with an agreement from a lessee with experience to manage this facility. He felt that commission should take rtx�re time and go through proper channels and felt that the development agreement and affordability issue should go to council . Cortxn i ss i oner powns suggested mov i ng i t up to counc i 1 w i th no act i on to allow them to make the decision or make a decision of their own and let it go up to council where they could accept or reject it. Commissioner powns recommended approval of a minute motion for approval of the design concept and then come t�ack with a satisfactory development agreement. Commissioner Erwood agreed with Commission Downs except that he objected to the commission getting involved in the management issue. He did not feel the commission was in a position to evaluate the issue of management. Commissioner powns replied that they wo�ild not get involved in management but wanted to be sure there was management. Commissioner Erwood stated that if there was no management the projPct would fail and commission could not determine if a person was qualified as a manager or not. 5 � MINUTES PAIM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1986 Cortmissioner Richards stated that his concern was for what happens � if this project does not make it; we're left with a high density pro,ject with one parking space per unit which would have to be converted. He stated that there was no question of trying to evaluate management and was looking for someone who has had some experience and would be willing to cortmit to three to four years. Chairman Crites o�ened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPP05ITION to the proposed. Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Cortxnissioner Richards indicating approval of the plan design and layout for the proposed facility by minute motion. MR. WENDELL RYLEE concurred with the staff �eport and noted that while they did not have experience in managing this type of facility, they were wiliing to enter into an agreement when they had a pro,�ect . He felt there were ready to sign an agreement with Mr . Schirofsky. He noted that staff had . suggested 17 separate units at HUO figures and questioned r_ondition #7 on page 4 regarding undergrounding utilities. Staff indicated that the condition would be rewritten. Commissioner Richards wondered if it would be asking too much to � bring the proposed management to the next meeting for a brief presentation of their past experience. Mr. Rylee replied that Ross Moor Leisure World managed units of this type and that he would be happy to comply. MR. FRANZ TIERRE, 46-333 Burroweed, felt that this was an excellent proJect and told the commission if someone were going to spend $A millio� o� a pro,�ect, they would make it work. Commissioner Wood asked if Mr. Tierre was a land owner. Mr. Tierre replied that he owned two lots in that area. Cortxnissioner Wood asked if he had an economic interest. Mr. Tierre repiied that he had a city interest and felt this pro3ect would be good for the city. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, amending the previous motton to include the continuance of the public hearing to February 18 pending a development agreement to address items of concern. Carried 4-1 (Cortmission Wood voting no due to location and parking concerns. ) 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1986 �,,., 8. Case Nos. PP 85-41 , PM 21342, AND VAR 85-3 - DEEP CANYON BUILDING PARTNERS, Applicant RP.qUPSt for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact, a precise plan of design, parcel map for condominium purposes, and variance to landscaping requirements to allow a 12,700 square foot office condominium building on .S acres in the C-i , S.P. zone located on the south side of Palm Desert Drive (Highway 111 ) , approximately 210 feet east of Panorama Drive. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and recommended approval . Commissioner Wood asked for and received clarification regarding �ffice ta condominium conversion. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the cortmission. MR. NICK FARO, Architect, agreed with the staff report . He noted that it was his intention to design and fill office/condominium units. Ne i�dicated that one partner might own one �f the condominium units. r.. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSIT[ON to the proposed. 7here being no one, the public testimony was closed. Chairman Crites asked if any letters in favor or opposition had been received. Staff replied no. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Cortxnissioner Wood. adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Richards abstained due to a possible conflict. ) Moved by Ccxnmissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Wood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1107, approving PP 85-41 , PM 21342 , and VAR 85-3, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0- 1 (Commissioner Richards abstained due to a possible conflict. ) 7 +r.r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1986 C. Case No. PP 85-42 - JAMES FETRIDGE, Applicant � Request for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow three residential apartment units on a 8175 square foot property in the R-3 zone located at the southwest corner of San Gorgonio and Las Palmas. Mr. Sm i th out 1 i ned the sa 1 i ent po i nts of the report and recortmended approval . Commission asked for and received clarification regarding installation of a pool , the one bedroom/one den variation and discussed parking. Chairman Crites felt that the intent of the ordinance was clear as to a minimum of 800 square feet. Commissioner Richards commented that ahile this shows a weakness in the structure and showed the availability af staff to provide answers when they want to provide them, he felt that the size of the discrepancy of IOy. variance was small and the lot was small with three units on a piece of property. He felt that wheR dealing with small pieces of property in town it might behove commission to be a little lenient and that 729 was somewhat in the intent. Chairman Crites noted that Palm Desert � prides itself on its standards and the kind of things it allows in the city, but staff says in their report that the parking is undesirable at best. Mr. Smith replied that the only way to solve that problems would be to put in two story structures in a neighborhood that is basically one story and staff was not prepared to suggest that as a viable alternative. Staff indicated that it would have been more concerned regarding the 800 square feet if the applicant had come in with a one and one request at this size in order that he only need provide a one and one half parking spaces per unit. He has provided the full two parking spaces per unit and its meeting all the other requirements. Most applicants would have come in and referred to a one and one - one bedroom and a den at this size. What they submitted to us was a two bedroom and was obiiged to bring it to the commission's attention and felt that he provided a realistic response to that concern. Commissioner Richards co�xnented regarding undesirable parking that i t was th i s cortmi ss i on i n the past that passed the structure on E 1 Paseo behind Jenson's with no parking. 8 , � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANt1ARY 7, t 986 � Commissioner Wood noted that the parking was always going to be a problem, but felt in this case that. the pluses overcame thP minuses. He complimented his colleagues on picking the differences out and not being snowed by staff. He felt that sometimes he only gets a one-sided version on some of those things. Chairrr�n Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JAMES FETRIDGE, architect, conceded that he could enlarge that second bedroom which is referred to as a den. He noted that the plans provided for that, so one waii could be extended to get closer to the 800 square feet. He stated that when he drew the plan he thought he had 800 square feet. He felt that the parking was brought about because the lot size is in a contingency of diminishing return because it is a corner lot and setbacks on two sides and with two bedrooms and providing two parking spaces we have provided three in the garage and three open or uncovered. Those on the Las Palmas Street side of it, which is contiguous to property already owned by Ms. Gravette, they have on the ad,�acent property already provided the same type of parking and would continue the theme. Chairman Crites asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or �" OPPOSITION to the proposed p�oject. There being no ane, the public testirnony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1108, approving PP 85-42 subject to conditions. Carried 5-0. D. Case No. PP 85-40 - AL VANDERVELOEN, Appiicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and precise plan of design to allow eight residential apartment units on a 26, 70Q square foot property in the R-3 zone located at the northwest corner of Shadow Hills Road and Driftwood Orive. 9 �r�. M I NUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1986 Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and � clarified that the number of units being discussed was eight and not ten. He noted several concerns and recommended a c:ontinuance as stated by the applicant. Commissioner powns asked for and received clarification regarding the utility easement. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony. MR. VANDERVELDEN asked commission for a one month continuance. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSiTION to the proposed. MR. FRANK OANIEL, president of the Mountain Villas Homeowners Association, submitted a letter voicing concerns regarding Shadow Hills Road being a country lane, Driftwood Drive being extremely congested because of recent apartme�t buildings, parking problems, and drainage becau5e of water accumulation where Shadow Hills Road and Driftwood Orive intersect to drain through his property on an easeway and also the elevations and landscapi�g. Cortimissioner powns noted that if there is a drainage problems, he � could contact public works. Mr. Oaniel replied that the water just spills across the road and when a recent project drained their swirtming pool it flooded all the property along the front and stated that he had his gardeners working on the drainage as it comes through the property, but was worried about adding to the problem. Commissioner Wood asked to whom Mr. Daniel 's concerns should be addressed. Cortmissioner Richards noted that we are working on a continuance. Chairma� Crites stated that he can come to the next meeting and see if the issues have been attended to by the applicant and staff. MR. GEORGE BOOKER, Driftwood, stated that he had the same concerns. Mr. Smith concurred that there was a drainage problem in the area and stated that the public works department was taking note of the concerns. Mr. Gaugush stated that it was part of the assessment district 83-t which should help mitigate the parking problem. Chairman Crites asked that staff address the issue of both parking on Driftwood and Shadow Hills when the r_ase comes back. 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1986 � Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Cortmissloner powns, continuing PP 85-40 to February 4, to allow staff to address the issues of the site plan, elevations, drainage, and parking. Carried 5-0. E. Case lio. CUP 85-6 - DR. NANCY CREEK, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow use of a 1200 square foot cormiercial building for a veterinary hospital within the general commercial zone at 74-004 Highway ill . Mr. Drell outlined the staff report and recommended approval . Commissioner Wood stated that the reference to the project not being detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious, that it was strictly an opinion of the staff and asked for the reasons behind that opinion. Mr. Drell replied that it was based upon the one experie�ce this city has had with a veterinary clinic and noted that state regulations would insure that the statement is true. �r.r Chairman Crites �ened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. There was no response. Chairman Crites asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPP'OSITION to the proposed. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Frwood, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4- 1 (Commissioner Wood voting no. ) Ccxnmissioner Wood stated that he was shocked that the commission was passing something like this in view of all of the statements made by citizen groups and all local groups to put this type of facility on the frontage road when the city is trying to improve the frontage roads and upgrade them and then put this type of facility in the middle of all the offices. Commissioner Richards asked what the difference between a veterinarian hospital or what problems it could create bei�g any different than a store that sold fans. Ne asked if Commissioner 11 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, i986 Wood was looking to tear the building down and what the real motive �' was. Cortxnissioner Wood answered the first part of the question by saying that a veterinary hospital treat dogs and cats and are put in the back of the facility and held there. He felt that it should be away and is against public welfare. He declined cortment on the second part of the question. Cortxnissioner Richards asked if he envisioned a noise problem. Commissioner Wood replied that it was one problem. Moved by Commis5ioner Richards, seconded by Cortmissioner Erwood, adapting Planning Cortmission Resolution No. 1109, approving CUP $5-6, sub,ject to conditions. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Wood voting no. ) VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. PP 85-38 - DAWN/GOLDEY III PARTI�RSHIP, Applicant Resolution of denial . Mr. Smith outlined the findings o� the resotution and discussed with cortmission s� possible conflict with a future proposal . Commission felt there was no conflict and that a precedent would not be set by passing this resolution. � Chairman Crites stated that he had reviewed the tape and discussion on the pro,ject and feit comfortable in participating in the discussion. MR. MARK HENSLEY requested a continuance on the basis of the PC (4) zon i ng. He stated that he wou 1 d 1 i ke to work w i th the city to find some corimon ground. He requested a one month continuance. Commissioner Richards stated that while he would be willing to serve on a subcortmittee to study this case, he did not feel the p�oject was anywhere near what the city was looking for. After f urther d9scussion, commission felt that the resolution of denial was appropriate at this time. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Cortmissioner Erwood, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. 12 +��1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANN[NG COMMISS[ON JANUARY 7, 1986 .r Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Cortmissioner Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1110, denying PP 85-38. Carr i ed 5-0'. IX. ORAL CUMMIlN[CATIONS None. X. OOMMENTS A. Cortmission discussed the upcoming joint planning cortmission/city council meeting for January 24 to discuss sidewalks (Monterey and the wash) , city entrances and zoning, etc. Commission was in favor of a fixed agenda and viewing the sites before the discussion. B. Chairman Crites noted that two meetings ago staff had prepared a graph layout for the senior citizens project and requested that all new proposals be placed in that form. C. Chairman Crites stated that he would like members of the commission to very specifically look at staff reports with an '�' issue in mind: the last four or five meetings there have been a number of times when members of the cortmission have suggested that staff report have been one-sided or selling jobs or biased and such things as that. He said that if inembers of the commission feel that it is true, he would appreciate it if members would specifically go to staff with examples of what those issues are so that it is not an on-going problem that the commission ends up with in public hearings. He did not feel it did the commission, staff or the city any good to create the kind of adversary role and a role in which commission continually (appropriately or not) snipe at staff concerning their presentation style on things. Ne stated that he would like that issue addressed between members of cortmission and staff to work that out. Commissioner Wood asked how the commission couid objectively analyze a report when it has not received all of the evidence. He f elt it is not until such time as its presented to the cortxnission and noted that other cortxnissioners bring up points that he may not have thought of or points from public testimony. Chairma� Crites felt that it was different than saying that the staff reports themselves are deliberately one sided in nature. 13 �... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1986 Commissioner Wood stated that he had never heard that inference � from anybody. Mr. Smith reminded Cortmissioner Wood that earlier that evening staff was accused of giving the commission a snoN job and took affront at that. He stated that the report outlined the pluses and negatives of the project and then came up with methods to mitigate those negative impacts. That was why commission had a recortxnendation of approval in front of them and then staff's accused of giving cortmission a snow ,job. Cortxnissioner Wood replied that staff was being too sensitive. Chairman Crites disagreed. Cortmissioner Erwood stated that he felt this should not be used as a forum to take cheap shots at city staff in their preparation of things ,just because the commission is appointed by the city council . He stated they all have been guilty of this and stated that we are starting off a new year and we should start off on the right foot. Cortmissioner Wood replied that he was merely parroting what the Chairman had said and what Commissioner Richards had pointed out and commended them for taking a good look at the staff report. He did feel that anyone has a tendency to be sold on something a�d advised staff when making reports and recortimendations that they stay ob,�ective and not get emotionally involved where they ,� are arguing with commissioners and trying to sell a proJect. He stated that in all fairness he had heard this cortxnent many times and hed heard it from council people that staff is trying to sell them on something. He felt that Cortmissioner Richards does a good job at that and Chairman Crites in cross examining staff, in which he learns a lot and felt staff should not take offense at it - commission was only trying to dig out all the facts. Chairman Crites suggested that the commission try to attempt to remain as professional and courteous as the commissio� can. Commissioner Richards noted that he prefers that staff should realize that he feels more time shouid be taken when dealing with specific changes of significant economic importance and when dealing with the first or second of these pro,jects. He stated his preference for taking his time when something is new. He stated that after something has been running awhile and there are severat examples the commission has something to fall back on. Any time the city is getting involved in development agreements or areas where entering into a regulatory body, commission should be specifically careful and cautious and take thPir time. 14 ' � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1986 �r.. D. Commission discussed a letter distributed by Chairman Crites From the Rancho l_as Palmas Association, Inc. , expressing concerns on densit.y. He felt these concerns came from Rancho Mirage's down zoning of a piece of property along Park View opposite from One Quail Place. He passed this along for informational purposes only. Commissioner Richards asked that staff answer the letter thank i ng them for the i r cortxnents and i nd i cat i ng a c 1 ear map of the area and what the zoning is on the undeveloped parcels that they may have questions about along their border lines and extending to the end of parcels along Park View. Staff concurred. E. Commissioner Wood complimented staff on their position regarding their request for continuance and their pointing out th�t. the architectural design of that facility was not proper. Commission discussed the architectural process after being reviewed by planning cortxnission and also discussed the make up of the commission members. Cortxnissioner Wood informe� the commi ss i an that he had to defend the cortxni ss i on for the des i gn of a building and had to say that he did not have anything to do with the design. 1r.r Commissioner Richards noted that it was the opinion of the planning cortxnission that they should not be involved in the aesthetics of a project. He felt this was a Nise move and did not want to get involved in that process. Chairman Crites noted that it was still in the cortmission's purview to exercise it. Commissioner Wood stated for the record that he had a different version of that because when he was representing a group that was quite co�cerned with the architectural commission at that time, when Wilson was mayor and he went to Wilson saying that they will support the planning commissi�n not reviewing if the makeup of the architer_tural review board was changed with two laymen and three architects. He noted that it had been corrected. Staff agreed and stated that there would be an ordinance before the commission on the January 21 to allow for a provision of an alternate member to that body. Commissioner Wood stated that he was called to task by Hank Clark and Bill Tennison regarding some of these buildings and 15 u.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSiON JANUARY 7, 1966 i j was taken on a tour by Mr. Clark, who expressed his opinion on � how these buildings should be designed. F. Mr . Drell distributed a proposal that had been submitted to allow the commission to review a preliminary staff report for a full month before the hearing. He asked that if the commission had any questions, comments or concerns that they inform staff of these in two weeks at the next meeting. Chairman Crites stated that because of the size of the project staff was requesting that commission initially review the project in the next two weeks and then under the comment sections if there are areas that are unclear or need more data on, those suggestions be made to staff at that time. XI . AD.lOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Oowns, adjourning the meeting. Carried 5-0. The meeting adJourned at 9: 10 p.m. �. ,� c � RAMON A. DIAZ, Secreta�y ATTEST: �� _��-�' -zri hC Z,`����� ' � BUFORD,,�fTES, Chairman / /�m 16 �