Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0406 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - APRIL 6 , 1993 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE �.• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Spiegel called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Cox led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Bob Spiegel , Chairman Paul Beaty Diane Cox Carol Whitlock Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan Staff Present: Ray Diaz Gregg Holtz Bob Hargreaves Seyed Safavian Jeff Winklepleck Tonya Monroe Phil Joy �' IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the March 16 , 1993 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the March 16 , 1993 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz indicated there were no March 25, 1993 council actions pertaining to planning commission actions . VI . CONSENT CALENDAR None. VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. RV 91-5 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for revocation of an approval to „r,,, park a trailer in the front yard area on MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6 , 1993 private property at 74-691 Candiewood „� Street. Mr. Winklepleck stated that Mr. Barboza completed the block wall, installed a gate and the RV was screen from the street . He distributed a photograph of the home. He said that this met the screening requirement and an RV permit was no longer needed. Commission reviewed the photograph and agreed with staff . Action: No action was necessary. B. Continued Case Nos . GPA 93-1, C/Z 93-1, TT 27710 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - LOWE RESERVE CORPORATION, Applicant Request for recommendation of approval to city council of a general plan amendment from public facilities to very low density residential 1-3 dwelling units per acre, a zone change from public institution to PR-2 , a development agreement and a tentative �„� tract map for a 48 lot single family subdivision surrounding three golf holes on a 55 acre site located east of Portola and south of the Living Desert. Mr. Joy noted that the project was 48 lots on 55 acres, which resulted in less that one unit per acre. He said this matter was continued from the previous meeting so that staff could investigate the impacts of the project and a possible realignment to Silver Spur in the Portola Avenue vicinity. Public works department did that and after investigation found that there were a number of different exit points to the Silver Spur development with the most popular exit point of Silver Spur residents being Buckboard Trail . The association had a meeting and voted not to request any kind of modification to Silver Spur Trail but they requested a stop sign at the intersection of Buckboard Trail and Portola Avenue. After discussion, public works staff ' s preliminary investigation determined that the number of cars right now did not warrant a stop sign, but they could continue to monitor the situation on a daily basis to assess the need for a stop sign at this location. He noted there the City of Indian Wells approved the project for 250 homes regardless if 2 "� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1993 � any of the homes were built in Palm Desert or not, so there would always be the traffic from the 250 homes on Portola. The one issue staff was still working with applicant on was the traffic mitigation fees of approximately $117, 000 . That was in addition to the TUMF fees collected for the project. Staff was recommending that they collect the fees based on four projects and the percentage of a fee was going to each of the four different projects--staff recommended that this be expanded so that it was not just fees for a project, but anything else that the general plan called for in the way of street improvements along the streets identified as impacted by the project. With that staff recommended approval . Commissioner Cox asked if the 48 homes in the Palm Desert portion would have a Palm Desert address or Indian Wells . She also asked if there would be an annexation to Indian Wells of the Palm Desert portion. Mr. Joy said that the 48 homes were in the City of Palm Desert so technically they would have a Palm Desert address; it would be up to the United States Postal Service. Commissioner Cox informed commission and staff that she would be abstaining from further questions or comments because she had an equity position in Ironwood and she did not feel it """ would be to her best interest to vote. Mr. Diaz said that commission could instruct staff to report back to them on a six month basis or more frequently in terms of the stop sign on Buckboard. This matter could also be referred to the city traffic committee . Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TED LENNON, 72-058 Clancy Lane in Rancho Mirage, stated that he was the President of Lowe Reserve Corporation, the developer of the project. He said that the only issue he wanted to address was the traffic issue and agreed with staff ' s chanqe to the development agreement regarding the use of the money and they requested that it be dedicated to Portola Avenue and that area--staff ' s stipulation was fine with them. He said they redesigned the project to stack additional cars on-site for construction and service traffic for both Ironwood and themselves and had an exhibit that showed the car stacking and the new site plan/entry plan which took into account the new turn lane originally recommended by Commissioner Cox and the discussion that .�.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMYSSION APRIL 6 , 1993 they not have cars stacked on Portola. They brought all � the gates in and the main entry gate could stack approximately 70 cars on-site and the other one could take about 45 trucks . Commissioner Whitlock asked to see that exhibit. Commission reviewed the plan. Chairman Spiegel asked how often the development would stack 25 trucks; Mr. Lennon replied that with daylight savings time there would be more service vehicles . Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MRS . RUTH KELLY, owner of a home in Ironwood for approximately four years, indicated that in their letter submitted last month they were concerned with the density of the project and the negative impact from this development, as well as the view of the desert and mountains . She understood that the developer had approval for the 250 houses in Indian Wells regardless of what happened in Palm Desert and asked why more units needed to be allowed closer to their homes . If the City of Palm Desert approved the project, what guarantee would there be that the applicant or future owners would � not go back to Indian Wells for an additional development to total 250 homes . She understood that some type of photo analysis had been prepared and hoped that all of the residents in Ironwood and anyone else would have access to review that before any voting on this project was done. She asked what the minimum number of units were needed to build the project in Palm Desert. She also stated for the public record that she requested that Ironwood be involved in any future development as an over-view site committee and would appreciate having answers to these questions before the commission voted. MS . GAIL BERGMAN, Silver Spur Ranchers Association, noted that on February 16 at the last meeting, planning commission asked the public works department to review the traffic situation and come up with a couple of alternative solutions . After they did their car counts, she met with Mr. Folkers and Mr. Safavian and was told there was no problem on Portola and that they had no solutions because there was no problem. She felt they had too many complaints from their homeowners to think there was not a problem there. She informed commission 4 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6 , 1993 � that she took photographs from their exit on Silver Spur Trail looking north, going left on Portola to the stop sign at Haystack, which was really close to their access . Another photo was looking south to the right towards the Hidden Valley project which would generate the additional traffic . In addition to that she took a picture from her car, which was where she said the problem was occurring. She stated that counts could be taken, manuals consulted, and statistics quoted, but the real fact was that when sitting in a car a potential danger could be seen. As mentioned by Mr. Joy, they had their homeowners association meeting and everyone there said they thought the best solution would be a stop sign at Buckboard Trail to slow down the traffic coming down the hill so that they could look both ways and exit safely. That was their main concern--the safety issue. Until tonight she had not heard that public works would review the situation on a daily basis . She was told they absolutely could not put a stop sign there because of the volume that comes out of Silver Spur Ranch and that would never change. She felt the human element needed to be recognized in addition to the speed of cars coming down the hill and not just numbers and statistics . They saw a danger there and wanted planning " commission to plan for that and not wait for someone to get hurt before action was taken. She said she had been instructed by the board to put the commission on notice that the residents see this as a potential danger and they identified it and did everything they could and met with public works , and if nothing was done, they would hold the commission responsible for not taking some kind of preventative action. She handed in her letter and photographs for the record. She said she appreciated Mr. Lennon' s donating any additional monies that were required by the city for Portola because she felt that would be needed. Other than the problem with exiting Silver Spur, they did not see any problem with this development. The other number she wanted to point out that 27$ of their residents exit Buckboard and 19g exit at Silver Spur Trail, but when that was totalled, the impact of their residents exiting onto Portola was 46� of their area. She stated that statistics could be manipulated in many ways and hoped the commission looked beyond the numbers . MR. DOUG SIMMONS, 75-401 Painted Desert in Indian Wells, stated that he reviewed the plans and specifications with Mr. Lennon and he felt it was in keeping with the ` 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1993 direction of the City of Palm Desert and the quality of � the project was something that would enhance the City of Palm Desert and encouraged the commission to vote for the project. Chairman Spiegel asked Mr. Lennon to come forward and address the questions from Mrs . Kelly. Mr. Lennon asked for the questions to be repeated. Chairman Spiegel noted one question was if the development could increase from the total of 250 units to additional numbers of units . Mr. Lennon replied that they restricted themselves through the agreement with the Living Desert and in their aqreement with the University of California Ecological Reserve. He said they also agreed to put that limit with the City of Indian Wells . If all parties agreed to release them of that agreement to increase the amount, that was a possibility. They did not have a problem making that restriction within the City of Palm Desert for the overall project. Mr. Diaz stated that from the standpoint of the project and the environmental impact report, the project description limited the entire project to 250 units , so if additional units were to be added, the EIR would have to be amended and ,� additional public hearings held. They would be conducted in Indian Wells or Palm Desert, depending on where the units were to be located. Mr. Lennon said that another question was the computer rendering that was done for the Ironwood Homeowners Association No. 5, which were the homes fronting the desert . He thought Mrs . Kel ly' s home was in the middle. Association No. 5 formed a liaison committee which he worked with for over one year and that was the group they submitted all their requests and mitigations and made an agreement with. The last issue regarding the rendering, the liaison committee put it in the hands of a couple of their people and he got a phone call today that it was acceptable. He did not bring it, but said he would be happy to show it to Mrs . Kelly. It was a rendering showing from their residences what the development would look like and that was the last condition of their approval and they had accepted that as satisfactory. As far as Ironwood as a group went, they were in good stead with the Ironwood Board. He noted that Ironwood was made up of many associations and the club. With the border they shared with Ironwood, 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1993 ••. 75$ was club bordership and 15�-20� was association no. 5 . Ironwood Country Club' s major benefit besides some additional land for their golf course was the flood control they would be providing. Mr. Joy stated that the computer rendering was not something the city had access to and could not take any responsibility for it, but one of the things they did require was the applicant provide pad heights of all adjoining residents from Ironwood Country Club to verify the visual impacts shown on some of the drawings, which would actually be the finished product. Mr. Diaz said that in terms of the overall project including the area in Indian Wells, the density was substantially below that of Ironwood and in terms of that portion of the project which was in Palm Desert, it was very close or below that of Ironwood. MR. LYNN CRANDALL, Attorney for Lowe Development, stated that he wanted to point out a couple of things that would provide a broader picture . The zoning of the property as it exists now would permit the construction of low cost or government sponsored residential housing. `�+ What this applicant had done created an outstanding development and he could not help giving his personal opinion since he had represented Lowe Development and worked with Mr. Lennon. He felt the project would be a beautiful asset and the reason for that was the way Mr. Lennon had worked with the Living Desert, University of California, the Ironwood residents and he said that it was refreshing as an attorney to watch Mr. Lennon work with these groups and satisfy the concerns instead of saying he would see them in court. He felt they had a unique situation with land use entitlement and that was that the majority of the land was in Indian Wells , the entitlements had been given and the project could go forward. He stated that the they were in a situation where the city was in a little tenuous ground were it to exact conditions of the type that it couldn' t exact because it didn' t really need to engage in a certain approval process . Rather that taking that type of approach, he worked with the city and entered into a development agreement, which had been the source of the additional money. It produced the $117 , 000 for traffic mitigation and was something that probably could not have been exacted from the developer in a conventional situation. That led him to Ms . Bergman and her .... 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6 , 1993 concerns--he wanted her to realize that these were not ,� problems that had to be solved tonight. This money was goinq to be a fund which could address traffic. The city could watch the situation and address those traffic problems in the future and would have those monies to do it. Chairman Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked for comments from the commission. Mr. Diaz said that he would like to address Ms . Bergman' s concerns regarding the stop sign. From the city staff standpoint it would be very easy for them to say that the stop sign could be put up today. From the developers standpoint the cost would be minimal in terms of the overall project. However, the State of California, rightfully so, established criteria for stop signs to go up. As an example there were stop signs at Gerald Ford Drive that were put up by other cities that did not meet the criteria. Stop signs that did not meet the criteria or warrants were actually more dangerous than not having a stop sign at all . He said the city did not want stop signs placed merely for convenience, but for safety. He indicated that he wasn' t saying that Silver Spur wanted the sign only for convenience, but the state established those warrants and the city had no control � over them. That was why staff would come back to the commission every six months and as soon as warrants were met, the stop sign would be installed. Until then, it was not the developer' s fault, the city' s , or anyone else ' s that the state ' s criteria was there. In terms of the traffic situation and flow, staff could keep monitoring that and recommended the six month requirement. He felt it was worse to have a stop sign that did not meet the warrants--that was a greater hazard. Commissioner Whitlock felt the most important development in the city was residential and an upscale, environmentally sensitive project like this one would enhance the entire community. She added that for the city' s and Silver Spur' s benefit based on Mr. Diaz ' s comments instead of a six month review, in deference to the residents of Silver Spur, the review should be every three months for the traffic situation and stop sign at Buckboard. She stated that she would move for approval of the findings . Commissioner Beaty said that while he wasn' t at the first meeting, he listened to the tape and reviewed the staff documents and felt it was a unique project. He noted that 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6 , 1993 � there was a reference to a much higher density project that was at one time proposed and he felt this was a positive development from that standpoint. He indicated that the traffic situation should be watched and at certain times it was probably impossible to get out at Silver Spur. Chairman Spiegel felt the traffic problem would not be a result of the Hidden Valley project, but would be from the Living Desert. He noted that last year they had over 181, 000 visitors, which translated to over 300 cars in and out per day. That traffic would only increase. He agreed with Commissioner Whitlock that a three month review of the traffic on Portola, particularly in season, was warranted. Secondly, he did not like the idea of being held up by saying that if this development did not occur, the city would get low income housing. He did not feel that was appropriate for this forum. They were not talking about low income housing, but about what he considered to be an excellent development . One of his major concerns at the last meeting was construction--noise, trucks, etc . , but no one else had voiced that concern from the neighborhood. Mr. Lennon demonstrated that he would be able to stack 25 trucks going into the development and so he had no objection to the project. He asked for a motion. ...� Mr. Joy asked if the motion would include a recommendation to the city council that there be a review every three months . Commission concurred. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Cox abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1614 , recommending to city council approval of GPA 93-1 , C/Z 93-1 , TT 27710 and Development Agreement. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Cox abstained) . C. Case Nos . PP 93-2, C/Z 93-2, GPA 93-2 - FRRNK MILLER, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, change of zone from R-1 to O.P. , a general plan amendment from low density ..�.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6 , 1993 residential to office profession, a „� precise plan, and a setback variance for a 4600 square foot one story office building at the southeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and San Luis Drive. Mr. Winklepleck explained that the zone change involved three lots on Fred Waring between San Luis and Acacia. The request was to change the existing R-1 designation to O.P. The project would be constructed on lot nos . 17 and 10 . He said that lot no. 11 the applicant did not own at this time, but was included in the zone change. The owner of lot 11 was contacted and she was in favor of the change. The current general plan designation was medium density residential 5-7 units per acre; this would not allow any type of commercial activity. The applicant was proposing a general plan amendment to accommodate the office professional zoning. The project consisted of a 4600 square foot office building on a 11 , 914 square foot lot . The remaining 10, 018 square foot lot would be developed at a later date. Access to the site would be from an ingress/egress point on San Luis Drive. The architectural review commission on February 23 granted preliminary approval of the architecture and landscaping. Mr. Winklepleck noted the applicant was also requesting a s street side yard variance to allow a setback reduction from r 15 feet to 0 feet. The variance request was based on an exceptionally wide parkway along Fred Waring. The 28 foot landscape setback wauld exceed the typical office project' s 25 foot setback along Monterey. Similar variances had been granted in the past . In addition was a minor parking lot variance decreasing the parking stall depth from the required 20 feet to 19 feet. This was based on the narrow lot widths and where the buildinq narrowed to a 12 foot width. The general plan amendment and change of zone were consistent with the city' s goals for Fred Waring Drive and past approvals . The precise plan met all the applicable standards for the O.P. zone with the exception of the street side yard and parkinq lot. He felt the variances were justified and recommended that planning commission recommend approval to the city council, subject to the conditions of approval . Mr. Diaz stated that in terms of the depth of the parking stalls, they would meet the depth that the city placed in the President ' s Plaza area. Chairman Spiegel requested clarification on the variance from 15 feet to 0 feet on the side yard setback. Mr. Winklepleck explained that on a typical office side yard in the office 10 �" MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1993 +`•► professional zone, the city looked for an average 25 foot landscaped buffer between the curb and the building. In this case the public right-of-way left over from the county widening of Fred Waring Drive was 28 feet. He demonstrated this on the wall map. Chairman Spiegel o ened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOHN CODY, Cody and Brady Architects, 74-277 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, stated that he was present to answer any questions . He felt staff had done a good job of outlining the problems with the site. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. DON WITTEMAN, representing Mrs . Cordero who owned the property on the corner of Acacia and Fred Waring, addressed the commission. He said that about a year and a half ago they had all three of those lots and presented a project to construct a building on the two lots fronting Fred Waring and the lot that was the second one in on Acacia. That eventually did not work "'� and the San Luis property on the corner of Fred Waring was sold to Mr. Miller. He asked the commission if they had any objection to including in the zone change to O.P. on the corner of Fred Waring and Acacia the property south of it. It would have the same relevant bearing on the property to the east, which was the Peggy Ames building and the property that Mr. Miller had also extended down to be contiguous to the second lot back. He said that Mrs . Cordero believed that property would be included in that loop and if the commission determined this was an R-1 piece of property and would remain as it is, it would have little value, especially backed up to something that would be crammed with office professional on a small lot. Originally they were going to use the second lot back as predominately parking for the structure, which would be put on the front lot. He asked for consideration in that regard. Mr. Diaz said that before the commission was Mr. Miller's change of zone. If Mr. Witteman wished to apply for a change of zone after this one was approved or denied, he could. The commission could not give an opinion at this time. He understood Mr. Witteman' s concerns and felt that this change of zone might impact on how the commission decided on a r... 11 Mzrru�rEs PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6 , 1993 � � future application, but that would have to be a separate � application. If the gentleman had a problem with the change of zone as it stood, he should express it. Mr. Witteman said that did not answer his question. He noted that he and Mr. Diaz had conversations along this line going back a few years and they were told when they wanted it to be zoned O.P. so that they could sell the property as having a commercial value, that they couldn' t do that until they had a specific plan. They spent a great deal of time, effort and money in developing that specific plan and when he was called by his client today to attend the meeting and discuss this, the commission was now going to do something that he was told by Mr. Diaz would be impossible to do. That was to change the zone in a blanket scenario. He said they were also discussing giving the O.P. designation to the corner of Acacia and Fred Waring, which did not have a specific plan. Mr. Diaz said that probably what he indicated at that time was that staff would not recommend approval of a change of zone without a specific plan, and stressed that this did not mean someone could not apply. In this situation there was a change of zone request with a precise plan of design on a �i portion of the property. The other property requesting a change of zone did not have a precise plan of design on it and that would be before commission later should development occur on it. The result was that a variance was not required on the precise plan if that change of zone went through. Staff recommendation would be that commission approve the change of zone and grant the variance if that change of zone was not here. In regard to Mrs . Cordero ' s piece of property, staff had nothing to review. Here they had most of the property with a precise plan of design on it . If Mr. Witteman came in with a precise plan of design and a change of zone request on the entire property, staff could look at it, but he was advising the commission in terms of Mrs . Cordero' s property, their decision should not be based on what they do with the property represented by Mr. Witteman. Normally if lot 11 came in alone, they would recommend against them, but they had the right to apply. Here they had a larger application and by including lot 11 it made a cleaner package and while there was no precise plan of design on lot 11, there was not much they could do with it in terms of how it would fit in. � � s 12 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6 , 1993 ''� Mr. Witteman replied that what could be done with it would be considerably less if they had one of the pieces zoned O. P. and the other not zoned O.P . The property was currently for sale and it would make it virtually impossible to sell because of how staff was interpreting some of these issues . Lot 11 was not part of this scenario and was owned by the Corderos and she had no objection to the rezoning of her property. His problem was that if the city only rezoned one of the properties, it made the ability to sell property as a larger piece of O.P. virtually impossible. His request was that if they were rezoning lot 11 , which had no specific plan, why not take lot 12 with it as they had originally discussed. Then he would have two pieces of property that were contiguous and part of each other that were zoned O.P. If staff said the front one was zoned O. P. , he would bet $100 that the city would never rezone lot 12 . Chairman Spiegel stated that issue was not a question before the commission at this time. He said that if Mr. Witteman filed his request, they would be willing to discuss it. It was not a decision they would make that evening. ''"' Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. There was no one and Chairman Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked for comments by the commission. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she liked the precise plan and would move to adopt the findings as presented by staff . Commissioner Cox said that it was an attractive addition to that corner. Chairman Spiegel indicated that Fred Waring was going office professional and should, and it made a lot of sense for the city. He said that Fred Waring was more attractive now than it was ten years ago when he moved here. He felt it would be a good addition to the city. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1615, recommending to city council approval of GPA 93-2 , C/Z 93-2 , and PP 93-2, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0 . +... 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6 , 1993 � VIII . MISCELLANEOUS A. Case Nos . GPA 92-1, C/Z 92-5, PP 92-8, TT 27673, PM 27634 - GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Applicant Request for adoption of a resolution per commission request denying a general plan amendment from medium density residential to planned district commercial , change of zone from PR-7 to PC-2, precise plan, subdivision, parcel map, and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a 304 ,422 square foot retail commercial center on 39 acres at the northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive. Mr. Diaz noted that this was the resolution that commission direc�ed staff to prepare at their last meeting. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Beaty abstained) . ,,i,� Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1616 , denying GPA 92-1, C/Z 92-5, PP 92-8, and PM 27634 . Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Beaty abstained) . B. Comments/Suggestions on Planning Commission Informational Pamphlet Chairman Spiegel noted that the purpose of �he pamphlet was to inform people what was going on and what their role was in the process . He indicated that the commission asked people when they addressed the commission to give their name and address . He had a discussion with Mr. Diaz a couple of weeks ago as to whether some of the people wanted their home address given out. He asked if it would be satisfactory for the people addressing the commission just gave their name and city of residence. Mr. Diaz felt that was a better way of doing it because the bottom line was the city cared about the person ' s opinion, not where they lived. 14 "� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1993 'r�"► Commissioner Whitiock wanted to be sure that it was where they resided. Commission concurred. Mr. Diaz said it would be the city of residence. Chairman Spiegel recommended that the wording be changed to city of residence as opposed to address . Mr. Hargreaves said that was acceptable and if someone objected to that, the city probably could not even require the city of residence. Commissioner Cox asked if this was going to be out front for people to pick up. Mr. Diaz replied yes, that it would also be available at the planning department counter. Chairman Spiegel said that he was also in favor of a greeter at the door to explain these things and hand out the pamphlet, but that would be discussed at a later date. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A gentleman from the audience asked if the Gatlin proposal was "a go or no go" . Chairman Spiegel explained that the planning commission denied the proposal, but the applicant "`�'" had the option of appealing the decision to the city council , who would then have the final decision. He had been informed that the applicant would be appealing the decision. X. COMMENTS None. XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adjourning the meeting to April 20 , 1993 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . The meeting was adjourned a : 03 p.m. s � • RA N A. A , ecr ary ATTEST: Q. ROBERT A. SPIEGE , C irman � Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 15