Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0917 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Downs led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Jim Richards Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan Staff Present: Ray Diaz Phil Drell Kandy Allen Gregg Holtz Jeff Winklepleck. Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the August 20, 1991 meeting minutes. �r Action• Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, approving the August 20, 1991 meeting minutes. Carried 3-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz informed commission that Robert Spiegel had been appointed to the planning commission at the September 12 council meeting, but would be sworn in at the meeting of October 15. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP 90-14 - MICHAEL HOMME, Applicant Request for approval of a first one year time extension for a 8600 square foot professional office project on two lots extending from Monterey Avenue to Acacia Drive, 120 feet south of Park View Drive. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 B. Case No. PMW 91-4 - VILLAS AT DESERT FALLS, Applicant Request for approval to adjust the southeasterly line of Lot 10, Tract No. 23929, located on Crest Lake Drive. C. Case No. PMW 91-8 - WESTINGHOUSE DESERT COMMUNITIES, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for lots 23 through 26 and 53 of Tract No. 26018, located on Chalaka Place. D. Case No. PMW 91-9 - WESTINGHOUSE DESERT COMMUNITIES, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for lots 11 through 16, 18, 51 and 54 of Tract No. 26018, located on Kiva Drive. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 3-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. PP 91-7 - ECONO LOBE N' TUNE, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to allow a 3120 square foot auto service facility on Fred Waring Drive, 680 feet east of Highway 111 in the PC-3 zone. Mr. Winklepleck outlined the salient points of the staff report, informed commission that preliminary approval was granted by the architectural commission, and stated that one letter had been received in opposition from Downey Savings. Chairperson Whitlock stated that she felt this would be more appropriate in the industrial area, not in the gateway area to the city. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 Mr. Winklepleck indicated that the back doors were situated .. to face the storm channel and the front doors would face Toys R Us, which would mitigate concerns, and the proposal would be less of a traffic impact than a restaurant use. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. LARRY BELL, Newport Beach, stated that he was present to answer any questions and reserved his right to rebut public testimony. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one. MR. BELL informed commission that they had been working with the architectural commission and was looking forward to opening this facility in Palm Desert. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. Commissioner Richards felt this was an appropriate location which would allow people to visit retail uses while their cars were being done. He felt it was a compatible use. Commissioner Downs stated that he felt the use was similar to Pace and was against it originally, but based on the comments, he would vote in favor. Chairperson Whitlock reiterated that she felt this use would be more appropriate in the industrial zone. Action• Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 2-1 (Chairperson Whitlock voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1533, approving PP 91-7, subject to conditions. Carried 2-1 (Chairperson Whitlock voted no) . 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 B. Case No. VAR 91-3 - FOXX DEVELOPMENT CORP. , Applicants Request for approval of a three foot setback variance to allow storefront entrance ad display windows to be brought down to sidewalk level at 73-811 E1 Paseo. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval . Chairperson Whitlock o ened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JACQUES SALEM informed commission that this was a joint venture with Escala, which was an international business bigger than Chanel . He felt it would bring a new feeling of energy to that side of the street and would be a benefit to E1 Paseo. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS. GLORIA GREER, a Palm Desert resident since 1961 and E1 Paseo Business Association Board Member. She stated that the Daniel Foxx store had done a lot for E1 Paseo and as a publisher, she knew the reputation of Escala and felt it would be a great benefit. DR. PAUL CAMPBELL, President of the E1 Paseo Business Association, stated that speaking as a business owner, he was very impressed with the proposal. He informed commission that five of their 11 board members were present in favor of the variance. Mr. Diaz asked if this request had received Palm Desert Property Owners Association approval . MR. JIM FOXX informed commission that the proposal had been to the PDPOA for a first review and they had some changes; the plan before the commission reflected those changes and would be going back to the association for approval . Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 Commissioner Richards stated that he was in favor and felt this was an amicable change. Action• Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1534, approving VAR 91-3, subject to conditions. Carried 3-0. C. Case No. VAR 91-4 - ROBERT MAYO, Applicants Request for approval of a front setback variance to permit enclosure of an outdoor patio in connection with a restaurant storefront remodel at 73-990 E1 Paseo. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. There was no one. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. DR. PAUL CAMPBELL, 73-910 E1 Paseo, stated that he spoke to Mr. Mayor about the variance. Dr. Campbell informed commission that he was in favor of the change and felt the existing exterior of the building was not up to the quality of the rest of the businesses. He indicated that the main problem with the restaurant had been a lack of waiting room area in the restaurant. He stated that the variance would allow for a reception area and was very much in favor of the proposal. MR. DAN EHRLER, 77-777 Country Club Drive, stated that speaking as an area resident, he was in favor of the proposal. He felt that the applicant was probably absent because he was working. Commissioner Richards indicated that with Mr. Ehrler and/or Dr. Campbell representing the applicant, he was in favor of the variance. He noted that it was a planning commission 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 policy that if the applicant or a representative was not present, the item was generally denied or continued. Chairperson Whitlock was also spoke in favor of the proposal. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1535, approving VAR 91-4, subject to conditions. Carried 3-0. D. Case No. PP/CUP 90-5 Amendment - FELIDAZ, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to an approved precise plan and conditional use permit reducing the size of the parking lot for a 35,000 square foot commercial center on the east. side of Monterey Avenue between Highway 111 and San Gorgonio Way. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and informed commission that project approval would be subject to the applicant obtaining control or acquiring the property. He noted that a letter had been received from Ms. Giverson' s attorney requesting renotification of the public hearing, citing an inaccuracy in the legal notice as a basis for the continuance. Mr. Drell stated that the legal notice was not in error--the property owned by Ms. Giverson was included on the legal notice because it was part of the proposal . Mr. Drell indicated that it was very clear in the record that the applicant did not own that parcel. Commissioner Richards asked for clarification that the project originally approved by the planning commission was for office professional uses only. Mr. Drell stated that was correct, but indicated that city council approved the project allowing the first floor for retail uses. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 MR. DAVE TIMOFY, representing Dr. Lyons, informed commission that they have tried for four years to obtain this property and felt that eminent domain was the answer. Mr. Diaz requested that the comments be kept to the specific request before the commission. Mr. Timofy stated that he had no other comments. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS. RUTH GIVERSON, 44-875 San Antonio in Palm Desert, gave extensive testimony on the background of this case and her dealings with the applicant and city staff. She felt that she had been harassed, threatened with the loss of her home, subjected to mental cruelty for the past several years, and stated that she did not want her property to be included in this project in any way. MR. DUANE BAMBUSH, 44-887 San Antonio Circle, stated that his property was just east and adjacent to the project ' s parking lot. He indicated that he first became aware of the project about five years ago when the developer began buying property on San Antonio Circle and converting it tow into rental units, presumably until he got ready to build his project. He stated that when the homes were converted to rental units, the renters moved in and proceeded to "trash out" the neighborhood, the structures and yards, and began parking multiple cars in the street and dropping grass clippings from trucks into the street. He stated that all along he was not opposed to the project because he felt that any development would probably be better than what was there now. He indicated that a few months ago the developer began tearing down the uninhabited structures and he thought it was in preparation for development. He indicated he was now stuck with living adjacent next to a vacant lot and there were a few lazy drivers in town who wouldn't drive all the way down Alessandro and then onto Monterey, which was kicking up dust because they were driving through that vacant property. He indicated that he was stuck with a roadway next to his son' s bedroom window, and in September when there were storms, the wind blew up the dust and he stated that he was not looking forward to 7 %no MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 spring winds. He suggested that some type of ground cover be put down or a block wall built to prevent people ..w from driving through there, which would also provide a dust control measure. He stated that right now he was stuck like an island between two vacant lots, which not very pleasant. Commissioner Downs asked what could be done about that and Mr. Diaz replied that code enforcement would be notified about the dust control . MR. PHIL WHITTEY, 44-870 San Antonio Circle, concurred with Mr. Bambush regarding the dust and traffic. He also was concerned about the access to this property, where the traffic would be coming from, and if their street would be subject to people going to the commercial buildings. Mr. Drell stated that there was one driveway off of San Gorgonio and all other access would be off of the alley. He indicated that all along San Antonio in the original plan there was a 30 foot wide greenbelt and block wall . He said there was no access onto San Antonio. MR. WHITTEY asked what kind of traffic generation was expected down the alley. He noted that it was a narrow alley and children played there and right now it was kind of a raceway. He stated that his property had been hurt by the traffic back there because his buildings had been bumped and a portion of his fence had been taken out. Mr. Drell stated that it was a commercial alley and did not feel this was a location for children to plan. He indicated that this program existed because of the historic problems between the commercial uses on Highway 111 and these homes. He noted that they have seen the properties struggling to maintain their value against that alley and it had been decided that those properties could be enhanced through this program which would allow the property owner to sell and get full value from their real estate and locate in a more appropriate residential zone. Mr. Whittey stated that it was an appropriate area when he moved there. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 Mr. Drell noted that over time Highway 111 had become a vigorous commercial zone and ultimately, as the projects continued down, the alley would be widened to its full legal width, which was what the bank put in and was about 30 feet. He stated that the county provided only 20 feet and the goal of the program was to make that a fully accessible minimum 24 foot wide alley, which was what the parking code required. Mr. Whittey asked if that meant that a portion of their properties would be bought to provide the extra alley width. Mr. Drell replied no, the plan was to expand this concept and those lots were to be parking lots. He stated that this idea was originated in approximately 1977 or 1978 and was more specifically reiterated in the Core Commercial Plan and the Palma Village Specific Plan, which occurred in 1984 and 1987. He indicated that the plan had been implemented on the entrepreneurial efforts of commercial property owners, and in this case Mr. Lyons. He noted there were practical problems and conflicts that occur with other property owners. He felt there was an inherent conflict with the substandard alley and at one time the city had looked at widening it, but the cost was prohibitive because further down there were multifamily projects with carports and physical improvements where the replacement cost was so extensive that it didn't pay for it to be done. They felt it would be better to give those people commercial value for their properties and allow them to move into other vacant lots in that neighborhood, which would provide more them attractive residential housing. Mr. Whittey asked again what kind of traffic increase there would be in that alley. Mr. Drell felt that substantial traffic would come down off of San Gorgonio or via the frontage road. He indicated that the frontage road swung around the bank and would draw a person right in front of the parking lot entrances. He stated that it was not ideal and the program would work best when it was fully implemented, but this was only one little piece. Mr. Whittey indicated that the original plan was fine, but was concerned about the traffic on the alley and the potential of people driving through his circle looking for an egress. He stated that they received a lot of 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 traffic from the mall from people looking for a way to get back onto Highway 111 once they missed their turn. MR. CHARLES MILLER, owner of property along the alley, stated that people had been using his parking lot when the Town Center overflowed, which he had stopped. He asked where the alley access was to the entrance to this project. Mr. Drell demonstrated the access on the wall map. MR. MILLER stated that when he comes out of his building and walks along the alley, there probably wasn' t even 16 feet there and he has to be careful not to be hit. He indicated that cars would be coming along the side of his property and going into the center and there would be a lot of traffic there. He said he couldn' t see the city not condemning that property and while he did not like this, he felt it would not look right to put a wall around Ms. Giverson' s property, and if the city/developer was going to take half of it, they should take it all and make it right. He indicated that he owned the property on the other side of Mr. Bambush and he never built on it because he was requested to leave it for parking, like President' s Plaza, and it was still there and vacant. He also wondered about Mr. Bambush' s property. His property would be left there between two parking lots and he felt that the parking was not set up right. He asked if there was an entrance off Monterey. Mr. Drell stated that there was an entrance off Monterey via the frontage road and indicated that a person would turn right at the frontage road where it was two-way and then into it. He said that it was a super block concept that would go into the parking lot. Mr. Miller indicated that when coming south on Monterey, to make the turn you would have to go back clear around and back up the access road and a U-turn couldn' t be made there and he felt this was not a good thing. He stated that he did not know how they could keep the project without an entrance onto Monterey. Mr. Drell stated that there was a right-turn entrance for people going north. Mr. Miller asked if he was talking about the alley and Mr. Drell replied that traffic going north would 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 cross Highway 111 and come in that way. Traffic going south to Monterey would turn left at the light and would then go through in that direction. He indicated that because of the wide boulevards and medians, it made it hard to access some of the Highway 111 business areas. Mr. Miller felt that looking at the plan, it would be a horrible sight. He indicated that all these people would be parking at the bank and on his property and felt they would not go around to go back up there, but they would catch the easiest place, which would hamper his parking. He wondered if it could be changed to have access directly off Monterey. He felt this was a problem that should be addressed and hoped that Ms. Giverson would sell her property to try to get the city to look nice. Mr. Whittey concurred with Mr. Miller, but indicated that intersection was really tough. When coming down Monterey and hitting the breaks to make that right-hand turn in that alley, he indicated it was really busy in that location and he felt there would be a big block up at Monterey and Highway 111 . He stated that even making the turn at San Gorgonio was difficult at times when he comes home from work. He stated that when the light changed, people coming across the intersection had the intent of going to the mall, college or out to the country club and people would have to hit their brakes to make a turn there. Mr. Drell noted that there was a bus stop there and felt there was plenty of room to pull off to the side to make that right- turn out of the flow of traffic. Mr. Whittey said that he wanted the city to do something there and while he wanted to see the development, he was concerned about the traffic congestion. Mr. Drell indicated that this was designed for office use and traffic would be consistent with that use. Mr. Whittey indicated that he just wanted to express his concern and hoped it was addressed properly. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for comments from the commission. 11 *bw MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 Commissioner Richards felt that it needed to be found out where the city stands in regard to Ms. Giverson. Mr. Drell clarified that the proposed precise plan included a portion of Ms. Giverson' s property. Mr. Diaz stated that if the precise plan was approved and the applicant did not acquire that portion of the property, then he would have no approval. He indicated that the issue of whether or not the redevelopment agency should acquire that property through eminent domain was a subject for a different hearing. He felt it would be simpler if the decision had been made before, but it wasn' t. If the applicant did not acquire control of that piece of property and he could not build this particular plan as shown ( if that plan was acceptable to commission) , then the applicant would have to come back for a whole new series of hearings. He stated that the eminent domain matter would go before city council for a decision. Mr. Drell indicated that if the commission didn' t like this plan and would prefer the original plan which included all of Ms. Giverson' s lot, then that recommendation could be made to the city council. If planning commission did not want any plan, that recommendation could be made. Commissioner Richards noted that he originally voted against this project or had voted for it on a purely down-sized version where it was supposed to be office professional and taw where there would not be this intense use and setbacks and a driveway could be included. He felt the people adjoining this property were being misused and the traffic and alley-way were concerns and he did not feel that the alley was something that the city should be promoting. He felt it should be blocked off if nothing else. He felt this was a bad plan and the city was in a bad position. He stated that when the city starts dealing with redevelopment and existing homes, there were problems. He did not feel that the city should even think of eminent domain for a commercial project that should not be there in the first place. If the city council wanted to take that subject on, fine; he felt the use for this property should be down-sized by a tremendous amount and let it be used for a buffer so that there would be a small office that would cause little traffic and the city' s "will and might" would not be imposed on people like Ms. Giverson and Ms. Yardley to take their home. He felt that it was ridiculous that the planning commission was reviewing a project that if the applicant could not get the land, the project was no good. He did not want to act on a case like this until the problems were solved. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 He did not feel that the city staff should be asked to make a recommendation to the commission on a case that was in the state it is in right now. Mr. Drell indicated that the commission could refer it to the parking authority to make a final decision on whether they were willing to purchase the property or not. If not, that would be the end of it. Commissioner Richards asked about denial of the whole thing. Mr. Drell indicated that if the amendment were denied (which was the request before commission) , the original plan would continue to exist which included all of Ms. Giverson' s property, including her home. He indicated that for Mrs. Yardley' s sake, the matter should be resolved one way or another. He reiterated that there were three options: option 1--the amended plan where Ms. Giverson would keep her house and lose part of her yard; option 2--which was the original plan to take all her property; or option 3--a completely different project be proposed without her lot. He said they never explored the option until this hearing of only a taking a portion of her lot and he felt that exhausted the options. Mr. Diaz asked if the commission' s original approval was for offices only. Mr. Drell replied yes. Commissioner Richards said that they deleted the two stories and retail use. Mr. Diaz felt that the commission might want to recommend: 1 ) request final decision from the parking authority on the property in question, and 2 ) along with that request for a final decision, indicate to the parking authority that this commission feels that the original approval, as far as the use and intensity of that use, should remain. That way commission' s recommendation would be consistent with the last time, but commission would withhold that until the decision on the parking situation was made. Mr. Diaz felt that the public testimony portion could be terminated and staff be instructed to get that answer from the parking authority and then come back. Commissioner Richards indicated that findings would be consistent with the earlier discussion. He felt that people traveling north across Highway 74 had to wait a long time for the traffic signal and when they finally got a green signal it was a race from three or more lanes, all heading north, that had to be shuttled into two lanes. He noted that across the street was the Town Center. When it went in it was 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 understood there would be inherent problems that would occur at a later date and they were being heard now. He felt the city should look carefully at condemning the road or a piece of it to alleviate that problem. He did not feel the city should put more commercial on it, but should condemn it and take 20 feet away to allow a safe way to get down that road. Also, the alley-way was an issue. He felt it was a bad idea to promote any traffic of any kind on an alley-way that goes from 20 feet to 16 feet and was not safe; he indicated there were blind spots, the high stories, plus the impact on residents living there. Mr. Diaz stated that the planning staff agreed, which was why the plan before the commission called for a wider alley. As indicated earlier, he felt the plan was great, it was the execution that was poor. He felt that perhaps the plan should be revisited at the next meeting and then go back to the parking authority and if a pro-active role was not taken to implement this plan, then something else should be done. Commissioner Richards indicated that he was on the Las Palmas committee and Phil Drell worked on that very hard and it was one of the more difficult undertakings that staff had ever been involved in. He did not know how many public hearings there were before they came up with a beautiful scheme for a greenbelt and the parking lots. If the city couldn't write a check that would make everyone happy, then it couldn' t be done, but when talking about replacing a single family house with a single story building, it would not happen, unless the city said they would put up a ten story building, then the people could be written a nice check, because the economic value would justify it. He did not feel that they could sit there and spend tax payers dollars to do things for commercial entrepreneurs when the numbers don't justify it somehow. He felt the whole thing should be put on hold and the city should go back and review that section of the Las Palmas specific plan that dealt with that particular area and see if it could be revised to reflect the comments heard tonight. He felt there was more than just this site to consider. Mr. Diaz felt that staff could proceed with this because it was at one end; it would be different if it were in the middle of the block. He indicated that they could proceed with the suggested recommendation to keep this recommendation consistent with the previous commission recommendation and come back at the next meeting and go through the entire plan 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 on what was proposed to enable commission to make a recommendation to the parking authority and redevelopment agency and it there wasn' t going to be a proactive role taken in this, then forget it and let the people go on. He said the intent of the plan was to give the people in back where the parking would go full value by the people in the front (business owners) , who would pay for that and they would get the additional square footage. He said that without someone taking a proactive role in local government, it would not happen. And if it wasn' t going to happen, something should be done to solve the existing problems. Commissioner Downs felt that a 20 foot road was not wide enough if it was going to be kept as a road and asked about the parking authority. Mr. Diaz clarified that the parking authority was the city council . Commissioner Richards stated that the traffic itself on both the alley-way and the difficulty of heading north on Monterey Avenue was a substantial concern and the city should take a strong look at acquiring property to widen the road at that intersection along to San Gorgonio, just to make safer what was already there. He felt the intensity of the use and the square footage would have to be significantly reduced. He stated that if it was reduced a lot, Ms. Giverson and her mother could still own their home and the city might be able to have a better access design without cramming everything in to suit the commercial venture. He stated that Dr. Lyons had been trying to acquire property for many years and felt he knew all along how difficult this would be and the corner did not help his other properties like he probably hoped. The super block concept was difficult to do when the corner was broke off with the alley-way, which wasn't what they wanted. He felt that the methodology that should be employed was to have the consistency of the previous recommendation, plus the public testimony, and when the site was more precise, indicate that the commission was unhappy with the way it is, forgetting the fact that there was property being included that might never be obtained. Chairperson Whitlock stated that she wanted to go on record that she would hope that Ruth Giverson and her mother could be left alone and her home and lot kept intact. She also wanted code enforcement to take a look at the lot where the home was torn down so that Mr. Bambush would not have to put up with the dirt and dust problem. She concurred with 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 Commissioner Richards--she was not happy with the plan as it exists now and would be comfortable going to the parking authority with the original recommendations subject to the conditions as added by Commissioner Richards. She wanted Mr. Bambush and Mr. Whittey' s comments taken care of as quickly as possible also. Commissioner Downs concurred. Mr. Drell indicated that if the parking authority reaffirms their decision not to condemn any property, then the whole project would be dead. Then it would not have to be discussed again and the hearing could be re-advertised proposing to restudy parts of the Palma Village and Core Commercial Plans dealing with this area and he felt this was an example of someone trying to implement this plan to the best of his ability and if it was not satisfactory, it should be restudied. Mr. Diaz indicated that this would have to be continued because there was no legislative action involved in this decision and it would come under the AB 1601 as far as time deadlines were concerned. He suggested a continuance to November 5, 1991 and if a decision was made prior to that the matter would be re-advertised, and if it wasn' t, it would be continued again. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, continuing PP/CUP 90-5 Amendment to November 5, 1991. Carried 3-0. E. Case No. PM 27213 - MONTEREY AVENUE ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a subdivision of an 83.77 acre parcel into 3 parcels on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive east of Monterey Avenue. Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant was present to address the commission. 16 %00 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 MR. MATT FLOREZ, 77-777 Country Club Drive No. 146, stated that he was representing GTE. He stated that they *moo closed escrow in July and recently submitted a letter deferring this project and indicated that they were re- evaluating this project because of economics. 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 closed. Commissioner Downs asked why the division into three parcels. Mr. Diaz stated that it would separate the parcels by zoning. Action• Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 2-1 (Commissioner Downs voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1536, approving PM 27213, subject to conditions. Carried 3-0. F. Case No. ZOA 91-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for an amendment to permitted conditional uses in the commercial zones (C-1, PC-2, PC-3 and PC-4) . Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval . He explained that this would allow anyone in the commercial zones to apply for a conditional use permit for open air selling. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. DAN EHRLER, Executive Director of the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce, recommended approval of this amendment for the process to occur where both commercial, as well as public/institutional, zonings would allow open air selling to take place. He noted that at the last meeting the chamber requested this amendment and the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors strongly urged the active participation by its representatives in the conditional use permit process. He indicated an 17 %K MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 arrangement had been worked out with Mr. Diaz where a committee had been selected to be involved directly in %W" that process. He stated those representatives included E1 Paseo, Highway 111, the Town Center, and the One Eleven Town Center shopping areas to be involved with the review and input regarding any (public/institutional or commercial ) conditional use permit requests. He felt that the question of equity and the control system and the business communities' input within the process was of the utmost importance. The chamber had selected a body of very respected business persons who had already volunteered to take part in that process. He requested approval of the complete amendment to go to city council . Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. Commissioner Downs stated that he was basically against the whole thing, but felt that control was needed over the use at the College of the Desert. Commissioner Richards indicated that the real issues would be discussed at a later date and this was just to facilitate matters. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1537, recommending approval of ZOA 91-3 to city council . Carried 3-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. PP 91-1 - MLA INVESTMENTS, INC. , Applicant Request for a determine of use for a child care facility to be located on the commercial property behind RB Furniture. Mr. Diaz indicated that MLA Investments was requesting a determination of use as to whether a child care facility could be applied for with a conditional use permit in the commercial 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 zone. Staff recommended a determination be made that this was a consistent use. Commission concurred. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, determining a child care facility to be a consistent use within the commercial zone with approval of a conditional use permit. Carried 3-0. B. Letter from Coachella Valley Water District regarding decision by the Planning Commission requiring the undergrounding of booster stations on the Westinghouse Desert Communities site. Mr. Diaz explained that the city received a letter from the Coachella Valley Water District which expressed concern about the commission' s decision that the booster stations be undergrounded. Staff felt this was a policy decision that should be referred to the city council. Commission concurred. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, referring this matter to the city council for action by minute motion. Carried 3-0. C. Letter from Coachella Valley Water District outlining proposed activities over the next three to five years. Mr. Diaz explained that this was an informational item only and no commission action was needed. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS Commissioner Downs stated that he would like something done for Commissioner Erwood. Mr. Diaz indicated that staff would prepare a resolution of appreciation for presentation at a future meeting. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adjourning the meeting by minute motion,, Carried 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. RAMON A. DIAZ, Sec e ary WRICHAR�DS, J Vice Chairperson /tm 20