Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1017 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLC COMMISSION MEETING SAY - OCB(BER 17, 1989 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WART G DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Downs led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Members Absent: Rick Erwood Staff Present: Ray Diaz Kandy Allen Phil Drell Phil Joy a.. Steve Smith Joe Gaugush Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 19 and October 3, 1989 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the minutes as submitted by staff. Carried 4-0. V. S(T4v1ARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent October 12, 1989 city council action. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. TT 22690 - TEMPLE C ONSIRiCrION, Applicant Request for a one year time extension for a tentative tract at Desert Falls, the northeast corner of Cook Street and Country Club Drive. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLAMDG OCM ISSIM OCI BER 17, 1989 .r Commission asked for and received clarification as to what was originally approved, then moved for approval of the extension. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. TT 25217 - JOHN AND SEAN KEARNEY, Applicants Request for approval of a 16 lot single family subdivision located northeast of Monterey Avenue and Hovley Lane. Mr. Joy outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval. Commissioner Jonathan notified the commission that he would be abstaining. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. He did not. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. ROBERT WILLIAMS, 40-501 Clover Lane, informed the commission that the nice view of the mountains was why he had bought his property and was concerned about keeping it. He also asked about the wall and price of hones. MR. JOHN KEARNEY, the applicant, stated that as a general rule the pad level of houses would be 1 1/2 to 3 feet below Clover and prices would be at least has much as Clover. He also indicated that they would use the present wall and build two a foot retaining to maximize the backyards. Mr. Williams asked again about the price of the homes and staff informed him that the value of the homes was not under the planning oo mmission's jurisdiction. C:amnissioner Richards noted that when considering the cost of city fees, Mr. Williams shouldn't have to worry about the price depreciating. 2 .ri MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING 00"WiESSIM OCIU3ER 17, 1989 MS. LINDA ZELNE'R, 40-488 Sagewood, stated that she felt this was a wonderful project, but was concerned about the grade effecting the wall height. Mr. Jay informed her that fran Sagewood the pad heights would be lower than her lot, but on the corner where she lives, it was approximately the same. MR. SABBY JONATHAN, 40-464 Periwinkle, stated that his house was adjacent to the project. He informed commission that he had reviewed this project with city staff and felt it would be a positive addition to the neighborhood. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for commission tents. Staff added some wording that had been left out of public works condition no. 10. The applicant concurred with the wording and commission moved for approval. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Dawns, approving the findings as presented by staff. 3-0-1 (Commissioner ,r Jonathan abstained). Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Dooms, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1388, approving TT 25217, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). B. Case No. PP 89-24 - GUY EVANS, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for an 18,235 square foot commercial/industrial multi-tenant building in the service industrial (SI) zone on the east side of Beacon Hill. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would be abstaining. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. 3 o.. MINUTES PALM DFSIIZT PLANNING C U44ISSIC N OCI BER 17, 1989 Mod MR. LOU BISHOP, applicant, indicated the changes that had been made were in response to negative comments by the architectural review oomnission. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPP06ITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Downs noted that the applicant did what he had to do to obtain the parking. Comiission Richards stated that he had no problem with the proposal. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the findings as presented by staff. 3-0-1 (Conmissioner Jonathan abstained). Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1389, approving PP 89- 24, subject to conditions. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). C. Case Nos. C/Z 89-14 and PP 89-25 - 0. NlaiAM Ham, Applicant mod Request for approval of a change of zone from R-1 (single family) to O.P. (office professional) and approval of a precise plan of design for a professional office building on two lots on the east side of Acacia Drive, 100 feet south of Park View Drive. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended denial of the project due to the project not being consistent with the general plan secondary plan policies for approval of the change of zone with the access from a local street. He noted that one letter in opposition had been received by Mr. James Stewart whose main objection was the traffic that would be generated. Mr. Smith informed commission that he had suggested to the applicant that he attempt to obtain access through the Park View radio station or connect through the parking lot with the development fronting onto Monterey. Commissioner Jonathan asked for history on the Palma Village Specific Plan and asked if that area was designated for an alternate use as offices. Mr. Smith explained that it has a dual designation of high 4 .■r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CCMKISSICN OCIOBER 17, 1989 density residential or office professional. Commissioner Jonathan asked when the Palma Village Plan came into effect for that area and staff replied 1984. Mr. Drell noted that three houses were in existence on Acacia, and the fourth house had just been completed. The theory of professional office use was based upon the developer on Monterey using that as part of their project as parking and with no access onto Acacia. Cannissioner Jonathan asked about the apartment building on Monterey and if any present improvement on Acacia would face the same problem. Mr. Diaz stated that the apartment building access would be from Acacia for the parking and subject to a precise plan hearing. He noted that when the city went through the public hearing on that project the residents were assured that the driveways would line up with existing streets. Mir. Drell stated that when the Palma Village Plan went through on the location of the apartments, it was all one ownership and the goal was to encourage the apartment owner to improve the parking and some amenities and develop the whole block as part of the project. Subsequently, the rear part was sold (which the city bought) and the housing authority owns the apartments. C mmissioner Jonathan stated that if any project wants to go in that doesn't go all the way, on Acacia and doesn't front on Monterey, it would face the same problem unless access could be worked out; staff concurred. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. MICHAEL HOMME, 43-600 Desert Lily, stated that if the commission felt the use was inappropriate, he would not mind withdrawing. He stated that the block of property between Monterey and Acacia other than three existing houses is office professional or an apartment building or city parking lot. That block was designated for those things and this property on the master plan was now office professional except for the three houses, which on the overlay were also office professional, but are existing residential properties. He indicated that he awns bits of the property, he sold the property to the city behind the apartments and also owns property on Monterey and had visited with the city about incorporating the property on the back side of Acacia into existing uses over the last three or four years. When he was trying to determine a good use of the property he went to the surrounding property owners, across the street there was a house that had existed for 20-30 years and on Park View there was a vacant lot and immediately north was a radio station; on the east commercial property and south a 5 41M MINUIES PALM DESERT PLAMIW7 OCM ISSION OCTOBER 17, 1989 residential property. Those were the only properties that touch the property. He went to the surrounding property owners, specifically the residential property south and visited with the owner originally to do additional single family houses; that property owner changed his thinking into making the application office professional because from their point of view the limited amount of use the office professional use brings upon is in the daytime, not the nighttime; not on weekends and if done in the proper fashion, which he felt with the deep setback from Acacia, a residential look in nature, would oompliment the area. He indicated that he had a letter from that property owner in support of the application with access onto Acacia. He stated that the property owner to the west was not in town and did not give him a letter, but also did not complain about this when they visited several times. At the other end of Acacia where Ray-Al developed, their driveway access was on Acacia at that location; he also noted that the property at the corner of Monterey and Fred Waring had access onto Acacia within one block of Monterey. The access of this property was also one block off of Park View. He visited with Dick Oliphant and Tony Lizza, owners of the property behind him, and they would allow him access onto Monterey. That concerned him and the property owner to the south because they did not want that traffic in the residential area, and while the 7,000 square foot building would not produce much traffic, if it was tied in to some of the existing properties that do produce traffic, they were concerned that the access be limited. He felt that an identification and address on Acacia needed an entrance on Acacia. He felt it was hard to find a building with an address on Acacia but the entrance on Monterey and was a difficult thing to do, even though he felt it would be good to have a fire access into the parking area going out to the Monterey side. He felt he had done considerable work with the surrounding property owners to cane up with this use and they seemed to be in favor of the project. He felt it was a nice compromise for the area. He also stated that it was not real pressing to him and if the commission felt real strongly against it, then he would "roll over" on this one. He felt that Palm Desert needed office spaces where the average person could have an office in a residential area, much like the garden office uses in other cities. Chairperson Whitlock asked if Mr. Homme had contacted the radio station about access off of Park View. Mr. Hamme responded that he visited with them and would continue to do so; he stated he felt that it was important to have access off of Acacia with maybe signs that 6 qmd NIINMES PAINT DESERT PLANNDG CC"IISSICN OCICBER 17, 1989 say right-turn only or no left-turns so that people don't turn down Acacia, and felt it was difficult to have an address on Acacia and no entrance on Acacia. People would be driving around the block looking for the entrance. He indicated that project would be single story, same setbacks as adjoining residents, heavily landscaped, and was a use people wanted to see. Mr. Hanmme noted that the architects were also present to answer any questions. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone was present to speak in FAVOR of the project; there was no one and she asked if anyone present wished to speak in CFPOSITICN to the project; these was no one, so the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Richards asked staff to respond to the comments by Mr. Hamme with regard to an address on Acacia and no access there and address the lack of opposition. Mr. Smith noted that one letter in opposition had been received which was circulated to the commission. The matter of addressing the property, from 1984 on the city indicated there would be a 20 foot landscaped buffer along the local street with a wall; there was never going to be any identification from Acacia and did not feel the city would be wanting to sign a building facing a residential structure r.�. across the street and a single family hone on the west side of Acacia. He stated that this would have to be one of those office buildings where people knew where they are going; the city was not servicing the tourists in the area. He stated that it was not an optimal location. Commissioner Richards asked if staff was still in support of denial after hearing Mr. Hamie's convents. Staff stated yes and unless the oo nnission indicated that they would amend the policy section of the Palma Village Specific Plan, they had no alternative. Commissioner Downs asked why other people were getting access onto Acacia. Mr. Drell stated that those other projects front onto a commercial street and the access driveways were placed as close to that street as possible. He stated that this was a case where the line had to be drawn somewhere and it was a combination of access and moving of the cannercial use fronting down the line; one thing for the back being just a wall and landscaped parkway; this was one lot in from the major street, which all the other projects were on the major street. Chairperson Whitlock asked if a precedent would be set with this particular parcel; was there another parcel that would have to front 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNIM OCK-USSION OCICBER 17, 1989 onto a residential street in the Palma Village Plan. Mr. Smith replied all the homes on Santa Rosa. Commissioner Richards stated that this was his big concern on other projects seen recently (i.e. Oliphant project when it started drifting down Portola). This was what happened when things were changed on a corner or in a small restricted street like this one. He felt that he would have to support staff's recommendation. Commissioner Downs suggested that oommission ask Mr. Homme to go ahead and withdraw his application. Mr. Diaz that staffs concern was access onto Acacia. If it were designed together with the building in front and identified as an office park with access fran Monterey or through the radio staticn parking lot from Park View, staff would be in favor of the proposal. Mr. Hcmne stated that the letter in non-support was not from an adjoining property owner; Camtissioner Richards was right about the Palma Village Plan being kept to the original idea, which was for the property to be office professional and be buffered. He noted that to build residential next to the now oc niercial two-story, the two- story project would really impact a residential project. He felt office professional was the most appropriate use for the property. He spoke to the adjacent property owners who felt the same way. He also indicated that unless the city changed its parking, it would also have access coning out onto Acacia in limited places, subject to a precise plan. He informed the connission that the only reason he would not withdraw his application was because he went to a lot of work to find out what the people who lived there wanted to have there. Connissioner Jonathan stated that he liked the project, but felt the mix of office and residential was inappropriate. He stated that he would have to support staff, but wanted to see the developer work something out with Dick Oliphant and Tony Lizza for an office complex with a Monterey address. Connissioner Jonathan stated that he would move for approval of the staff's recommendation with findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Richards asked the applicant if a continuance would be appropriate to allow further study. Mr. Hcmme stated that he visited with Mr. Oliphant and Mr. Lizza and they would grant him access to Monterey and felt that Mr. Paul Pozen at the radio station would also grant access, but he did not know the impact of being on Acacia 8 NIINCTPFS PALM DESERT PLANNDIG CX144ISSIC N OCTOBER 17, 1989 without any access would be. Mr. Diaz noted that instead of calling it an Acacia building, put it together with the Oliphant/Lizza building and give it an identification of a Monterey project with the Monterey traffic and a Monterey address. Mr. Homme felt the proper thing would be to stand on the merits of what was there and he would continue to investigate the situation; he noted that the area residents were concerned with traffic from Monterey and Park View, not so much the traffic from this particular project. Commissioner Richards noted that commission was dealing with a change of zone and it while could be allowed, it did not have to be allowed. Action: Moved by CcmTdssioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Cc nnission Resolution No. 1390, denying C/z 89-14 and PP 89-25. Carried 4-0. D. Case No. GPA 89-6 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant low Request for a reocimendation to city council concerning approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and a revised housing element to the Palm Desert General Plan. Mr. Diaz noted that the housing element was the work of Mr. Drell and had the approval of the State Department of Housing and Ccnvunity Development. He noted that not all cities in the state or valley were in this position. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the report beginning ng with the five-year summary. Commission asked for and received clarification on the five-year program. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the senior $1 million cost. Mr. Drell explained that was the projected in-lieu fees that the city has collected or projects to collect through the year 1995 as a result of potential congregate care projects that might be built in the city (i.e. Hacienda de Monterey paid a cash fee of $460,000 which has been used to purchase property on Catalina for a low income senior project). 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CO MLSSIM OC U3ER 17, 1989 Commissioner Richards stated that his problem was that he was concerned that this was a major economic proposal to the city with things that cross the political boundaries and he would like to see an affirmation from the city council that they want the city to proceed along the lines. He felt that Palm Desert should not have to be the best at providing low income housing for everything. Mr. Drell informed Commissioner Richards that program A had already been to the city council and they initiated the program through the execution of an agreement with the Riverside County Housing Authority to sell the bonds and provision of all the new construction programs would be for employees of the city of Palm Desert. He explained that the reason these things were done were to comply with state law addressing the mandated needs as shown. Commissioner Richards asked what would happen if the city did not do this and Mr. Diaz stated that if the city did not do it then the whole general plan would be in jeopardy and the city could end up with the same situation as Indian Wells. He explained that the reason the city was doing this was because it was the law and it was right; he noted that Palm Desert could not attack Indian Wells' efforts in the housing area and not do a credible effort in Palm Desert. Mr. Drell noted there was a concern of new hotels on the basis that business can get employees and keep them here; part of the requirement for a reliable labor force was to provide housing. He also stated that housing for Palm Desert employees should be in the city because the farther away they are, the more they impact the highways. The plan addresses Palm Desert's own employment needs. Commussioner Richards stated that he was not disagreeing with the theory, but with the fact that the public should be apprised that this city was undertaking something of this nature and the public should be aware of the ambitiousness. He did not feel there would be enough public support for what the plan was proposing. He noted that minimum wage workers earn approximately $4.25/hrour to $5.00/hour, and asked how would the city provide housing in Palm Desert that would result in an economic set of alternatives that he did not feel sure the community of Palm Desert would be ready to accept. He noted there was a subjective degree that each city took to solve those problems. He stated that he wanted to see something to the public that would explain what the city wants to do. Mr. Diaz stated that staff would go through the programs and felt there was public support for them. Program A was under construction to provide curbs, gutter, sewers and public hearings were held to provide the 2,373 units; it was received and everyone was in favor. Commissioner Richards stated that that particular program did not hurt anyone. Mr. Diaz replied that none of the programs hurt anyone. Commissioner Richards 10 ,,,r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLA ING OOMESSION OCII3ER 17, 1989 low indicated that he would like to find out if the city was ready to accept the political reality of this, not the theoretical. Mr. Drell stated that the political body of the city was the city council and they had initiated program A and he also noted that the criteria for approving projects was the same it has always been as outlined in the suitability section where the city goes through the same process. Commissioner Richards noted that One Quail Place had been in bankruptcy because of a technical thing the developer did to get around scmethung and the place on Country Club was renting places on a block on a temporary basis. He noted that the city has little control on some of these issues and was not convinced that at this time that the development agreements and deals where restaurants were to be built and maintained between motels that never got built and things like that and he did not feel the city was great at doing these things. Mr. Drell stated that these programs were in response to the shortcomings of some of the items Commissioner Richards mentioned and informed him they would be publicly owned and operated programs and again stated that program A had been initiated by the council and the contracts made with the housing authority. He stated that while it looked ambitious, the issues were out-growths of programs initiated in the last housing element and the city was finally getting around to doing some of the things outlined in 1984. Commissioner Jonathan asked if program 2 A had already begun; Mr. Drell explained that it was initiated and Mr. Diaz stated that the bonds had been sold, but no specific project had been approved. Mr. Diaz noted that if a specific project was not built and the money not used, then the money would be used outside the city in the county and the city would be out the $2.3 million spent to get the bonds. He indicated that an area was tentatively acquired--part for the mobile home park area and part for the employee housing project in the north sphere around the Gerald Ford/Portola area and the bonds were sold. Commissioner Richards stated that he had not been out of town and he had not heard about this--he did not know the city raised money in a bond issue for an employee housing development. Mr. Diaz stated that an agreement was executed with the housing authority to turn some of the city's housing money into bonding money and leverage it into $60 million. He stated that the hopes were to acquire the mobile have park and part to acquire the Town Center apartments, and the other part to help create the employee village or a series of projects. He noted that the projects had not been approved yet and they would be before the commission for approval, but the bonds had been sold as part of a county-wide bond effort, of which there was $200-300 million available. Mr. Diaz noted that item 1 B had been instituted and was going-on to rehab the existing housing to make it affordable. 11 NMgUIE:S PALM DESERT PL ANNIMG C U44ISSION OCIUBER 17, 1989 Mr. Drell noted that prior to that there was specific narrative discussions of each of the programs in the element. Mr. Diaz stated that from the standpoint of the public being aware of these programs, each and every one was being done as a result of people caning to the city and asking for help--he indicated that the city was undertaking the housing element revisions because it solves the city's obligation and makes economic sense. Ccm issioner Richards stated that he saw a lot of theoretical things that if they worked would be nice and did not feel all of them would be unpalatable for the citizens of the city, but he did not see and never understood what the state could do to the city if it did not comply and how long the issue could be violated and was not sure he agreed with the urgency of this undertaking. Mr. Drell stated that Indian Wells would sue us tomorrow for lack of our general plan. Mr. Diaz stated that Indian Wells right now could do nothing in terms of their general plans and zone changes, but if the city was going to approach each state mandated piece of legislation on the grounds of the what if the effective or else was, then a greater problem exists. He also indicated that the state of California was getting serious on the housing issue and tying that into the transportation/air quality issue and waste management/recycling issue. Program 1 A has worked very well and 1 B has worked successfully; the Certificate of Performance program has cost nothing and there has been improvement of existing dwelling units; he felt that the Town Center Apartment program would work; affordable housing program's problem was usually having the money and the city has the money; ownership mortgage assistance was not a new program. Commissioner Richards noted that 1 E was 191 units--to say that those people were financially deprived, out of the Al units some might be, but how many other mobile hone parks in the city will want the same thing; these were not small items and have significant ramifications upon other areas of the city. Commissioner Downs stated that the citizens were paying for the curbs and gutters. Mr. Diaz stated that in the case of the mobile hone parks, if others want it and the city does not have the money, then it can't be done. Mr. Drell noted that this was a program initiated by council and which council was pursuing. Commissioner Richards stated that one of the reasons he was present was so that someone besides staff would look at this and his public input was that this had not been made public enough. He felt that the citizens needed to be apprised of these programs. He asked that this be made public with newspaper articles, he wanted to see something from the city council that says or a notation that refers to city council approvals and felt the ambitiousness itself was questionable. He felt it was not necessarily the will of the public 12 ..ri N914T ES PALM DESERT PLANNIM 0 M IWION OCI BER 17, 1989 that the city be so ambitious and he would like to see that someone besides staff know about this. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. Commissioner Downs stated that he would like to move for a continuance and get some answers that Commissioner Richards expressed. Commissioner Jonathan expressed surprise that so much of the information was so significant and he was hearing about it for the first time, noting that he was in the desert for the whale summer. He asked if it would be appropriate to generate more public notice and even have a study session on this item. He indicated that he did not know enough about this to vote on it. Commissioner Richards noted that there were many committees in the city (i.e. Year 2000) and felt that it should really be pushed around town. He stated that this was a major focus of the city and if this was the focus the people want, fine, he would be the first in line to implement the program. This should be put to the press in a reasonable manner that generates some opinion and also should be reviewed by the co nittees around town including the Year 2000 committee, the chamber of commerce, the economic development advisory committee and the rest of then. Commissioner Jonathan asked why the city did not appoint a committee specifically for this purpose. Mr. Diaz stated that each and every one of these programs were there for a reason; the largest expenditure ones have gone through the council in terms of money and if there was going to be political input from the public to make planning decisions based on political input, that was not the role of the planning commission. Commissioner Richards felt that enough time had not been given to study this and more public notice needed to be done. Commissioner Jonathan stated that this thing was too big to digest and would impact a lot of people that the oannission had not heard from and his view point was that the planning commission was not being asked a normal question for that body. They do not have a project, but a conceptual issue that has political overtones and would affect many people who do not know about it. Mr. Diaz stated that input was needed, but the commission should be making its decision based on planning principles, not necessarily political ones. Mr. Diaz stated that at the next meeting staff could have before the commission the EDC, the chamber of commerce people, and the mobile home park people. Chairperson Whitlock stated that was what the commission was requesting. Mr. Drell stated that it probably would not be at the 13 UM NII NUrES PALM DESERT PLANND G COMMISSICN OCIU3ER 17, 1989 all next meeting. Mr. Diaz indicated that it could be continued for a month. Commissioner Richards stated that he would like to see in the public notice a list of what the city would embark upon and the cost published in the local newspaper that there will be a public hearing and the city would be spending a specific amount over a specific period of time and the areas it would cover. Mr. Diaz stated that the cost and revenue sources were in the report and it could be made public. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing GPA 89-6 to November 21, 1989 to allow notification of public hearing and other bodies. Carried 4-0. VIII. MISCQ,LANEXUS A. Case No. PP 89-12 - GMRM MorSOVAS, Applicant Request for report concerning appeal of a planning commission denial of a 17,000 square foot commercial building. Mr. Drell indicated that a new exhibit had been shown to the city council. He outlined the salient points of the report and explained that the consensus of the council was that the new site plan was acceptable and if sufficiently landscaped, provided an acceptable streetscape, and relief to the street neighborhood and council recognized the applicant's arguments relative to having the parking in one location. The rendering was more illustrative of the project and there was no particular discussion on the appearance of the building. It was referred back to planning cammission because it had not seen the new rendering. Staff felt that as an exhibit it gave the architectural commission sufficient guidance in reviewing a working drawing that would accomplish the picture. Mr. Drell noted that the architectural commission gave preliminary approval to the project. He noted that the council was asking for input and they would make the final decision. Chairperson Whitlock felt that the drawing was certainly an improvement and in view of the approval by city council, she retracted her negative vote. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was some level of assurance that the project and landscaping would look like the drawing and have mature landscaping. Mr. Drell stated that when the working drawings 14 ail MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNIM OMMISSION OCIMER 17, 1989 come in, they would be evaluated in comparison to the drawing and was the job of the architectural commission to ensure the preliminary approval was implemented by the working drawings. Commissioner Richards stated that he did not like the way this was handled. His concern was that in the past the way things start is the way it would end and if someone starts off trying to save an architectural cost, they would do that the whole way through and the end result would be unacceptable. He did not like the way the gentleman presented the project and still did not like it although the new drawing at least looked like what the oommission requested the applicant to do months ago. He was concerned about the credibility of what he had seen. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, approving the PP 89-12 as shown on the new submittal. Vote was 2-2 (Commissioners Jonathan and Richards voted no). Staff indicated this item would then move to council without a recommendation. IX. ORAL C044JNICATICNS �.. None. X. OCMMENIS Commissioner Dowels stated that the housing element was an ambitious plan and did not totally understand it, but felt that Mr. Drell had done a good job. Chairperson Whitlock noted that approximately two years ago she was appointed to represent the planning oommission for the economic development advisory committee and asked if there were any volunteers to take over that responsibility. Commussioner Richards volunteered. XI. ADJOURNMENr Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adjourning the meeting. Carried 4-0. The meeting was adj at 8:49 p.m. Y � RAM014 A. DIAZ, S t T: A,' RI S, Vice Chairman /tm