Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0904' ! MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER vow 73-510 FRBQ WARING DRIVE � � I . CALL TO ORDER � � Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7: 09 p. m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Downs led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present : Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Rick Erwood Sabby Jonathan Members Absent : Jim Richards StafF Present: Ray Diaz Kandy Allen . Joe Gaugush Phil Joy Steve Smith Seyed Safavian Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration for approval the August 21 , 1990 meeting minutes. O��ig�L: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Er-wood, approving the August 21 , 1990 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Whitlock abstained ) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent August 23, 1' 90 council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 � � VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 90-08 - VISTA DEL MONTANAS HOA, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment at Vista Corona and Via Domingo. Ac-t-io!l: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan , approving the consent calendar by minute motion . Carried 4-0. VI I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. TT 26412 - JEAN HIRSCHI, Applicant Request for approval of a five lot single family subdivision north of Crosby Lane, 225 feet east of Della Robbia Lane. Mr. Joy outlined the salient points of the staff report; � described the letters that had been received in opposition , and recommended approval . Chairperson Whitlock asked staff if the project was part of a homeowners association and Mr. Joy replied no. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the smallest lot size would be if there were five lots and Mr. Joy answered they would be a 20, 000 square feet minimum. Chairperson Whitlock gIleaed the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission . MR. HAROLD HOUSLEy, project engineer, 45-175 Panorama, Suite F, informed commission that he had a number of meetings with staff to prepare this development and it met all zoning requirements. He indicated that the fire marshal was asking a 24 foot width, but he would prefer 20 feet, which was equal or larger that other roads in the area. He stated that he would discuss the matter further with the fire marshal . He felt their lot sizes were consistent with other lots in the area. He also felt that the applicant had a right to build � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 � consistent with projects around the area. Addressing concerns mentioned in the letter that had been received , he felt the property values would not go down since the project was consistent with the neighborhood and zoning and the project would be improve the area. MS. JEAN ANN HIRSHY, applicant, felt the project would be aesthetically pleasing and would not block views. DR. ROTTSHAEFFER noted that the proposal was within city requirements, it should increase the value of the land, and should not to hinder views. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. EDWARD BRITTONHOUSE, Crosby Lane Homeowners Association, informed commission there were approximately 15 different associations in Ironwood. He expressed concern regarding traffic, lot sizes, and ingress/egres. MR. JOE GRANGER, 72-975 Carriage Trail , spoke in opposition. He indicated that his lot abuts one and a half of the lots in question; one lot was seven feet higher and the other nine feet higher than his. He felt that the proposal would cut his view to the south and was concerned about road width and drainage. MR. RICHARD SCHOENBERG, 49-300 Della Robbia, owner of the lot to the south of the project , spoke in opposition to the proposal and felt that the lots were not consistent with the other two tracts that had been approved in that area. He asked that the matter be continued to allow more people to return from vacation. He also expressed concern regarding setbacks. He felt that the project should join into a legal property owners association. He indicated that they probably would belong to the Ironwood Master Maintenance District and felt they should also comply with standards within the Ironwood Country Club. Chairperson Whitlock asked if the applicant would give a rebuttal . 3 �� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 MR. HOUSLEY readdressed the commission and reiterated that the configuration and size of the lots met city requirements. He indicated that they plan to be good neighbors and these would be nice homes. He also noted that no parking would be allowed on a 24 foot wide street and was not an issue. He indicated that the actual grading plan would come before commission later with a specific proposal . Mr. Diaz informed commission that the grading plan would not come before the commission for a public hearing. Mr. Housley indicated that commission would be able to comment on the tentative map and stated that they would step down the pads from south to north onto Carriage Trail . Commissioner Jonathan asked the applicant to give some type of reassurance to the residents regarding drainage. Mr. Housley indicated that the conditions of approval require them to retain a 100 year storm on site and felt that all reasonable flows would be retained on site. MR. ROTTSHAEFFER addressed commission and indicated �� that he had not been aware that there was a Crosby Lane Homeowners Association and he had owned this land before Ironwood incorporated and they were not notified about belonging , but he expressed a willingness to join the association. Chairperson Whitlock cl- .2q the public testimony. Mr. Rittenhouse asked to address the commission to rebut comments by the applicant; commission informed him that the public testimony portion was closed. Commissioner Downs felt the project was not consistent with the area and stated that an extension of time was in order or a denial . Commissioner Jonathan felt that the proposal complied with the zoning and was not persuaded by the objections. He did not see a reason not to grant approval . Commissioner Erwood concurred with Commissioner Jonathan and felt the project was not inconsistent with the neighborhood. Chairperson 4 moo � � � � � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 ` Whitlock agreed with Commissioners Erwood and Jonathan and noted the project concurred with current zoning laws. Commissioner Downs requested a two-week time extension. � Commissioner Erwood noted that legal notices had been sent � and did not feel anything more needed to be done. � Moved by Commissioner Jonathan , seconded by Commissioner Erwood, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Downs voted no) . � Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner | Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1467, approving TT 26412, subject to conditions. Carried 3-1 � ( Commissioner Downs voted no) . � � B. Case No. PP 90-16 - J & P DEVELOPMENT, Applicant � Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and � r precise plan of design to allow construction of a 64, 200 square foot � mixed use commercial complex in the C-1 zone on the south side of Highway 111 at the city's western boundary. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions of approval . Mr. Diaz indicated that two other conditions needed to be added : 1 ) Applicant shall provide commercial recycling; and 2) Parking lot will meet parking lot tree ordinance. He also indicated that public works condition no. 9 should say per Palm Desert Municipal code, not under Section 12. 16 and 26. 44. � Commissioner Jonathan and staff discussed possible traffic � flow problems from loading and unloading. Chairperson Whitlock gpengj the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. two` 5 ' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 MR. JOHN PETTICINI of J & P Development indicated that he was requesting approval of a mini -storage facility that would be next to self-storage in Rancho Mirage and felt that because of the unusual shape of the parcel and adjacent uses, this would be a good use. He informed commission that he was providing more parking than other Palm Desert self-storage sites and the corridors were similar to existing self-storage sites. He indicated that it was uncommon to have more than one or two cars using the facility at a time. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was qd. Commissioner Jonathan felt that while the use was acceptable, the building was too much and more landscaping was needed. Chairperson Whitlock also felt the project needed scaled down and landscaping was a concern. Mr. Petticini informed commission that it would be reviewed again by the architectural commission. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would like to see the project again showing the smaller footprint. Commissioner Erwood indicated the matter should be continued and the applicant submit a drawing reflecting commission comments. Mr. Petticini concurred. Chairperson Whitlock Eggggppq the public testimony and asked for a motion. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing PP 90- 16 to October 16, 1990. Carried 4-0. C. Case No. P9» 89-5 - 0R. S.C. SHAH, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to an approved precise plan of design for a 19, 750 square foot office building at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Lupine. � � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 ' Mr. Smith explained that the applicant was requesting to � delete public works condition no. 7 from Planning Commission Resolution No. 1378 adopted on August 15, 1989 relating to � undergrounding of utility lines. He also informed commission that staff was unaware at the time of processing this application that a lawsuit had been filed. He then deferred the matter to the city attorney. Ms. Kandy Allen recommended that commission open the public � hearing and take testimony and then continue the matter to a date certain. Chairperson Whitlock gggnpj the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. LYNN CRANDALL, 74-361 Highway 111 in Palm Desert , indicated that if a continuance was considered, then they would prefer it be to the earliest possible date, which was September 18, 1990. Commissioner Downs asked what would happen if the matter had � not been settled by September 18. Mr. Crandall indicated tow that they were exercising the legal remedies available to them. Mr. Diaz informed commission that additional time was needed for evaluation and indicated there was a lot of back log cases. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the proposal . DR. S. C. SHAH, owner of the land, stated that he requested approval of the project a year ago and felt � that a continuance of three months was too long and felt that staff had complete knowledge of the project . Dr. Shah indicated that this was a small owner-occupied project and the city was requiring them to go across Highway 111 for utilities for this small project. He informed commission that he did not "get anywhere" with city council and was spending a lot of money for Caltrans to improve sidewalks, parking and the cul -de- sac and landscaping. He indicated that the city was asking him for $300, 000 more to get the utilities from across Highway 111 and he wanted the planning commission to be reasonable and let him proceed. ftww MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 low Chairperson Whitlock indicated that the commission would listen to the advice from the city attorney. Dr. Shah asked that the continuance be to the next meeting, because the project had already been held up for 15 months. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one. Mr. Diaz indicated that because of staff workload, the case should be continued to the meeting of November 20, 1990. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood , continuing PP 89-5 to November 20, 1990. Carried 4- 0. D. Case No. C/Z 90-11 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of the prezoning of the property north of Country Club ^ Drive, west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city and a negative declaration of environmental impact thereto. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended in favor of the proposal . Commissioner Jonathan asked how many feet away from the railroad the office professional use would be and Mr. Smith replied it was 800 square feet south of the first street. Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification regarding the fly-over concept and traffic impacts by Mr. Safavian of the public works department. Chairperson Whitlock ggened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. GORDON E. PAULUS, 44-419 Sorrento Court , representing Equity Directions, informed commission ` that this pertained to their item which was next on the agenda. He noted that in the North Sphere Plan it was � �� , � � � � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 recommended that a 2, 000 square foot buffer be provided because of vibrations, smells, etc. He stated that if the office professional/service industrial zoning were approved, the city standards would be much more restrictive than those in Riverside County. He indicated that the applicant will comply with the city standards and with mitigation factors and felt the project would be a good neighbor. He informed commission that they sent out many notifications and had meetings in the late spring/early summer and invited members of homeowners associations to come and � review their proposal . He indicated that they had met with Palm Desert Resort's association officers and with � Sunrise Company, who was in favor of the project . He � indicated that possible tenants would be restaurants, a � financial institution, church, and day care, which would be beneficial to the area. He reiterated that it would be a high-quality project and with landscaping and setbacks being provided next to the already ` approved county uses, this was an appropriate project . He felt that the eventual Cook Street Interchange would help reduce traffic in that area. Mr. Paulus told commission that Mr. Dennis French and Mr. Rick Jacobs were also present. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR of the proposal . MR. EDDY BUSH, Vice President and Treasurer of the Tandika Corporation, of which Avondale Golf Club was a major asset, indicated that he has a small piece of property and on the north end of it they would like to have a small residential project. He was informed by Riverside County Planning Department that if he did not have final approval prior to annexation, he could be � forced to start completely from scratch within the city of Palm Desert. Mr. Diaz informed Mr. Bush that if a subdivision was approved by the county the city would accept it, and the city policy has been to accept county approvals and abide by those conditions of approval for as long as the development approval was valid. He also suggested that Mr. Bush apply to the city, although he would not be able to start ' construction until the annexation was complete. He named ` %UW MINUTES ` PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ` SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 / several examples of developments where this procedure had been done. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. WAYNE GURALNICK, 74-399 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, informed commission that he was representing the homeowners at Palm Desert Resorter, which has approximately 1000 units. He felt that while the request was for a change of zone, he felt the change was actually a change to the general plan, which was presently residential , not office professional or service industrial . He stated that the residents in Palm Desert Resorter bought property under the assumption that the property would remain residential . He indicated that it was designated through hearings on the north sphere as R-1 ; and was now beomg proposed as a dual designation of O. P. /S. I . He noted that the zoning and general plan must be consistent and indicated that the change of zone and general plan amendment were being done in one action by the mini prezoning arrangement and felt the commission was making a choice between the R-1 dual designation by the adoption of the change of zone to an O. P. /S. I . zone. He also indicated that this was the fifth time they had been before a public agency opposing this development. They appeared four times before the Riverside County Planning Commission, who was going to deny Equity Direction's plan, but it was thereafter withdrawn before it went to the Board of Supervisors. He stated that there were hundreds of people present at those meetings. He requested that after conducting the public hearing the matter be continued to a date in October to allow a more representative number of the opposition to be present. He felt the issue of traffic was a major concern. He indicated that there seemed to be one consistency in the different traffic studies and that was the doubling of traffic that would occur for uses other than residential . He noted that there was residential there now with the Regency Estates. He felt that residential development could successfully occur in the buffer zone and felt that the developer of Regency Estates was proving that point. Mr. Guralnick - felt the scenic corridor on Country Club was nice until getting to the existing Equity Directions development , � 10 | ' � MINUTES � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEM0ER 4, 1990 which was adjacent to the property in question. He indicated that when Equity Directions received approval � of their 40 foot buildings, it was their "pride and � joy" . He also did not feel that a negative declaration was appropriate for this type of action. He suggested ! that the general plan be left as residential and the annexation go through, then let them come in for the change of zone and general plan amendment and not part � of the annexation process. He felt the development ' should stand on its own with an environmental impact study. MR. DOUGLAS E. MILLER, past president of the Regency � Palms Homeowners Association and appointed by the Regency Palm Homeowners director and residents to act on their behalf. He asked if commission had a copy of � the letter, that was delivered; Chairperson Whitlock confirmed that they did and he requested permission to � read the letter to the audience which was unanimously opposed to any pre-annexation zoning and requested a denial or continuance to the 16th or 23rd day of October (see attached Exhibit A) . He indicated that the board members of their association had heard nothing from Mr. Paulus regarding the Equity Directions proposal . He indicated that the proposal was denied twice by the Board of Supervisors per the Palm Desert Resorter and Regency Palms and he did not want to be part of Palm Desert if the property zoning was going to be changed. He felt the matter should be continued or denied. MRS. MARY STROSNYDER, 41-793 Preston Trail , a permanent resident in Palm Desert Resort County Club. She indicated that the Palm Desert Resort Homeowners Association has an over 960 family membership and they were vehemently opposed to the proposed project. She noted that there were only about 90 residents at home during this time of the year. When they purchased their homes they were assured that the tract in question would remain zoned for residential . She expressed concern regarding traffic, the environmental impact of traffic, noise, truck traffic with the service industrial , and any restaurants or day care facilities. She felt the property values would devaluate and the quality of the residential life would wow be incompatible. She asked that commission continue 11 MINUTES { � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ` SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 � this case to allow appropriate membership representation to be present. MR. PETER SOLOMON, 76-857 Abby Court in Regency Palms. He indicated that he and his family were the developers of Regency Palms and Regency Estates. He noted that in the staff presentation the existing buildings by Equity Directions were described as "big, boxy and bulky" to describe the two 40 foot buildings along Country Club Drive. He reminded staff and commission that the developer who approved and advocated these existing buildings were the same applicant. He felt that ultimately what was built was what the developer wanted to be built and disagreed with Mr. Paulus blaming the county for their standards. As a developer of Regency Estates he was opposed to the proposed project. He indicated they were extremely sensitive to the time and value of the present homeowners and future homeowners property. He could see no compelling reason for a zone change and felt there were plenty of other, places for office professional/service industrial development and ` the proposal would impact negatively on the Country Club corridor. He noted that Bermuda Dunes just east of Washington was an ideal place for this type of development, as well as the Palm Desert industrial area or in the large, vacant north sphere area. Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification as to the location of Regency Palms and the location of the railroad and potential adverse impact. Mr. Solomon noted that Palm Valley developed right up to the railroad tracks and they also had homes in close proximity in Regency Palms, but indicated that the 30 homes in that last phase sold out in under two months. Mr. Solomon informed commission ti��it he lives in the last phase of Regency Palms and while the trains could be heard, after a couple of days he did not notice them anymore. He felL there was such a big demand for housing in that corridor that they bought that additional property to develop as residential . MS. MARY KING, 77-027 Preston Trail in Palm Desert Resort, and a member of the board of the homeowners association. She stated that they were opposed to the ' project and she lived directly across the street and bought the property knowing that it would be residential . Maio 12 ' MINUTES � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ` SEPTEMBER 4, 199(� MS. ADELAINE DOMICO, 77-055 Preston Trail in Palm Desert Resort, expressed appreciation that the commission allowed anyone to voice their opinion. She indicated that they were from Ohio and were "snowbirds" For about sight years before deciding to move and buying property in Palm Desert Resort . She knew about the residential zoning and was opoosed to any zone change. She did not want to see the Country Club atmosphere damaged. MR. BRUCE LEGOWITZ, in Regency Palms, looked at the proposed zoning before purchasing property. He was concerned about traffic and was opposed to the development and the potential negative impact. MR. FRANK GONZALES, in Palm Desert Resort Country Club, appealed to the commission for a continuance to allow ^ other residents to be present. ` MR. DAVID NICHOLSON, in Regency Palms, felt the is sue was the request for the prezoning. He indicated that they cut their vacation short so they could be present for this public hearing. He suggested a park as a transitional use between the residential and commercial area. He did not see a problem with the annexation to Palm Desert but was opposed to the prezoning. MS. JEANNIE ROSE STEIGER, broker/owner of Crestview Realty in Palm Desert, informed commission that she had purchased and sold many homes in Regency Palms and felt that changing the residential zoning would devaluate the homes in the area. MR. JAMES STROSNYDER, 41-793 Preston Trail , indicated that he and his wife selected that area because of the scenic value of Country Club Drive and found out the zoning and owner and information on the proposed Sunterra development, and the land opposite their gate was zoned residential and would remain so. He based his decision to buy on this information. He felt the project would make it impossible for the existing homeowners because of the traffic. He indicated that the Riverside County Planning Commission and Board of � Supervisors voted against the change of zone. Isomw 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 MS. VELMA DICKENSON, 41-969 Preston Trail , speaking for her husband also, stated that they purchased their home approximately three years ago and were told that the property across the street was zoned residential and they fought and won with the county to keep it that Y. She requested a continuance to a later date. MR. BCE WILEY , 76-77 Queen's Court in Rege RU 1 ncy Palms, expressed concern regarding the outcome of the pr`ezoning annexation and the affect on his property. He also expressed concern regarding the traffic and road conditions. He felt these issues should be addressed and was concerned about the short time for the meeting notice. R. SOLOMON'S son, 76-857 Abbey Court, addressed the commission expressing concern regarding traffic , especially trucks going by when he's out riding his bike. He was concerned about children playing around ` the edge of the curbs/gutters at the bus stop and the � danger to them when trucks pass by. He felt it would be harder to get out of Regency if more traffic were added. Chairperson Whitlock asked staff for rebuttal and clarification on the possibility suggested by Mr. Guralnick of this project coming in on its own, and addressing the traffic issues. Mr. Smith informed commission that there was a video tape of the area if commission wished to view it . He also noted that letters had been received in opposition from Carey Wicke, Susie Solomon, Michelle DeSilva, Cammie Merkin, Linda and Paul Fulterton, Keith Robinette, Buck and Donna Pruett , Mr. and Mrs. John Mann and they attached names of nine others, Barbara and David Nicolson, Mr. and Mrs. Bird, Bruce and Helen Wylie, Marjorie Coons, and Paula and Dorian Freeman. He also received ten letter in support from Robert Eschelle, Michael Smith, Jack Corkill , Cynthia Ewing, Robert Simms, Brad Nestie and others. Mr. Smith noted that many residents spoke about the scenic corridor and he found the 14 course wall on a five foot slope by Mr. Solomon at ` Country Club and Oasis Club Drive very objectional . He also indicated that the landscape strip along the west side of a the Resorter did not have any plants and was dirt from Country Club to 42nd Avenue. He hoped that if the area was 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 annexed into the city, a better job would be done and felt strongly that residential did not belong on the property in question and in the report it was staff's recommendation that if the property had to be developed residential because of the neighborhood concern, the county should do it because of the long-term implications from noise and the potential Eagle Mountain dumpsite and the railroad transporting the trash. He noted that the residents north of Preston Trail were notified because they were within the 300 feet. Mr. Smith deferred the traffic issues to Mr. Safavian. Commissioner Erwood asked if the two issues could be separated and if they were, the city should not annex this area into Palm Desert because the service industrial area would have protected the area against noise and smell from the trains. Staff concurred. Mr. Diaz explained that when the north sphere plan was done, the county rezoned the triangular portion of Washington and Country Club to service industrial . The county also approved the existing two 40 � foot buildings and a grading plan on Oasis Club Drive which put the street three to four feet above the property to the west , as well as the railroad to the north and the county was in the process of approving a measure to increase the railroad traffic. He could not recommend R-1 zoning in that area; addressing Mr. Guralnick's points, he indicated that the area was dual designated and they were not amending the General Plan or Specific Plan and the city has development standards that are more stringent than the county. He indicated that the grading in Whitehawk and Regency Estates would not have been approved in Palm Desert, nor the Resorter landscaping along Oasis Club Drive. He expressed confidence in the city's development standards and any project built there would go through public hearing and landscaping would be put in and maintained. Mr. Safavian explained that staff requested a traffic study be done as though no previous study had been completed because the one done for the county was not as comprehensive as Palm Desert wanted. He felt it addressed the traffic concerns and took into consideration future traffic demands. He explained the proposed changes and diversions for traffic to the area. ` � Commissioner Jonathan asked that if the zoning could be left ftw' PR-5 and the property annexed into Palm Desert, then the applicant could come in later with a zoning request and Mr. 15 � , MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 -- Smith replied that PR-5 was not an appropriate zoning for the site from staff's view point. Chairperson Whitlock Kanyd_ the public testimony and informed commission that per advice from the city attorney, she would be abstaining. Commissioner Erwood concurred with the concept of taking the annexation issue separate from the zone change, especially a zone change that seems to be incompatible with adjacent properties. He also noted that an applicant, by timing and continuances, can wear down the opposition. He felt it was appropriate to look at the existing buildings done by an applicant and could not see a compelling reason for a zone change. He noted the success of the other residential developments in the area and felt the matter should be separated. Commissioner Downs concurred. Commission determined that staff should prepare a resolution recommending approval to city council of the annexation, for ° adoption at the next meeting, and reflecting the current county zoning. ectign: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, instructing staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval to city council annexation of the area and reflecting county zoning. Carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Whitlock abstained ) . E. Case No. PM 25270 - EQUITY DIRECTIONS, Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and a tentative parcel map for a 75 lot service industrial/office professional subdivision on a 118 acre parcel at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Oasis Club Drive. Mr. Gordon Paulus informed commission that the application ` was being withdrawn. A cti���: No action was needed. 16 / ` MINUTES ^ PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Request for determination of use for indoor batting cage/miniature golf course in the service industrial zone - STEVEN SPRINGER, Applicant. Li�Ln: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood , determining by minute motion that recreation facilities are a potential conditional use within the S. I . zone. Carried 4-0. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ' X. COMMENTS None. XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adjourning the meeting. Carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 31 p. m. ATTEST:-A t't-'L----4.--�-----�- � .. ' CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson /tm 17 Exhibit A Douglas E. Miller Cotistruchon Consultant `� � wl 39-640 Regency Way V Palm Desert, CA 92260 JG 2 9 1990 (619) 345-9586 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City X PALM DESERT City of Palm Desert C/O Raymond A. Diaz, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject; Prezone Case No. C/Z 90-11 (Equity Directions ) Dear Mr. R.A. Diaz, I received a copy of your notice of Prezone Case No. C/Z 90-11 , (Equity Directions) Tues. Aug. 28, 1990 . You state that a meeting will be held Sept. 4, 1990 at 7 P.M. , in the council chamber, at the Palm Desert City Hall. My name is Douglas "E" Miller, I am past President & Board Member of the Regency Palms H.O.A. , & represent 110 Homeowners . The two Homeowners ( 110) were unanimously in opposition to the Zone Change requested by Equity Directions. As you know the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, & the Riverside Planning Commission have unanimously rejected this request TWICE. Now Equity Directions is coming in the back door & you are open- ing that door. The Homeowners of Regency Palms are unanimously against any pre-annexation disscussion, because of the above, & we will. appose any attempt by the City of Palm Desert to Annex Regency Palms into the City of Palm Desert. As the Elected Director & Representive of the Regency Palms H.O.A. , I am requesting that you either cancel, or re-schelude the pre-zone Case No.. C/Z 90-11 too at least the 16 or 23 day of, ;,Oct.. 1990 'Please Advise &. thank you. ' r r <<, T S c rely, . ri4 t� Douglas "E" Miller cc; PALM Desert Resort H.OA. Whitehawk H.O.A. Peter Solomon Palm Desert City Manager Mr. Altman Customer Relations Quality Assurance Job Management