Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0521 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - MAY 21, 1996 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * � * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .... I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7 : 02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell James Ferguson George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Mark Greenwood Marshall Rudolph Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: '""' Consideration of the May 7, 1996 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the May 7, 1996 minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Ferguson abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent May 9 , 1996 city council action. VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 96-17 - AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge four lots located at the northeast corner of Deep Canyon and �,.., Highway 111 . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1996 B. Case No. PMW 96-18 - GONZALO MENDOZA, Applicant r Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge lots 7 and 8 of PM 17191 located on Ritter Circle. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. VAR 96-2 - MATS HEDBERG, Applicant Request for approval of a side yard setback variance from eight feet to five feet for a proposed garage at 73-535 Silver Moon Trail . Mr. Drell stated that the subject house didn' t have a garage and the applicant would like to build one. Due to the amount of room he has, to physically gain access to the garage the garage needed the extra reduction in the side yard setback. He was trying to comply with one of the zoning regulations by r having a garage and to physically do that he needed the variance. Because of the those factors, staff believed it met the variance standards and recommended approval . Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. The applicant stated that he was present and he didn't have anything to add. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSTTION to the proposal . DR. HAROLD BIRD, 47-967 Sun Corral Trail, informed commission that his property is at the back of a portion of Mr. Hedberg' s property. He had no objection to the variance for the garage. He indicated that he spoke to Mr. Drel l about one concern; he wanted to make sure that this garage would not became a commercial venture. He said that he was speaking for both himself and as a member of the Unit 1 Board of Directors of Silver Spur Ranchers Association. The board felt the same. They didn't want any kind of commercial venture allowed in "the Ranch" . His concern was based simply upon the fact � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1996 that Mark Hedberg, who occupies the property at the � present time and is the owner's son, likes to fix cars . They saw this being a commercial venture as only a possibility. Mr. Hedberg assured him that this would not be the case, therefore, the Ranchers and himself had no objection to this variance, but were concerned that the commercial venture not happen. Chairperson Beaty asked staff if that would be a violation of the ordinance. Mr. Drell concurred and noted that it was also a condition placed on the resolution. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1743, approving VAR 96-Z, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . ""' B. Case No. CUP 96-17 - PSLI INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a 15 student private school with capabilities of expanding to 30 students within Suites 211 and 212 of the office building at 44-100 Monterey Avenue. Mr. Drell explained that this is a language school in the building located at 44-100 Monterey. Staff 's concern with schools was based on their propensity to grow; if they were quite successful they could potentially create a parking problem, therefore, staff wanted a conditional use permit to allow the city to have some control and to monitor them. Their initial request was for 15 students with a potential of up to 30 students . The parking analysis for the way the building is currently being used indicates that there is significant surplus parking and, therefore, 15 or 30 students would not be a problem. In that the initial request at this time is only for 15 students, the condition is that if and when the applicant wants to go to 30 that as part of this action 30 would be conditionally approved pending a report by staff to the commission that there still remain adequate � 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1996 capacity for the additional 15 students . Staff recommended approval . v, Commissioner Campbell asked how long the school has been in operation. Mr. Drell replied that in a limited sense, for a few months. Based on their current enrollment they would comply with their current parking requirement. It is the potential for expansion that triggered the conditional use permit. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff knew the total square footage of the office building and the total number of parking spaces. Mr. Drell replied no. Commissioner Jonathan said he wondered if the parking lot was built at the standard faur per 1,000 requirement or whether there was a full 15� reduction. Mr. Drell replied that it was four per 1,000, but wasn' t sure about the reduction. Chairperson Beaty o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. NICOLE GRAHAM, representing the applicant, explained that many of the students going to the school take the bus or if they have a car there was generally two or three students to a car. Parking hasn' t been a problem. � Chairperson Beaty asked if it was adults attending the school . Ms . Graham replied that they were young adults who were either planning to attend College of the Desert or CSUSD. Commissioner Campbell asked if the school had a classroom atmosphere or if it would be on a one to one basis . Ms . Graham replied that it would be a classroom atmosphere, but because it was small groups, it would be one to one. Commissioner Campbell asked if they were just learning english or if they already spoke some english. Ms . Graham indicated that the students spoke various levels of english. They were being prepared for their TOEFEL test which would get them into a university or COD. Chairperson Beaty noted that there was no one else present to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION and closed the public hearing. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on condition no. 1 . He noted that it implies that the allowed limit was 15 and a request for anything beyond 15 would be required to be processed through the city and the Planning Commission as a miscellaneous item. Mr. Drell said that was right, although he would probably like to reword this in that the � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1996 current survey clearly indicates the likely acceptability of '` 30 students and he would be comfortable with 30 . It would allow them to apply for up to 30 without having to go through a public hearing, but staff would reconfirm the parking analysis at the time of the request. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they would start with 15, if they wanted more than 15 they would come back and it would force staff and the commission to take a look to make sure that the use is okay. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Ferguson requested clarification on the parking. Mr. Drell stated that staff ' s experience with schools indicated that there could be a potential problem. While staff knew the school was quite small now, that there wasn't an existing problem and that the appZicant wanted to grow beyond the current enrollment, therefore as a condition of the business license a conditional use permit was required. Commissioner Ferguson noted that there wasn't a parking problem based on the numbers given to the commission, which was his overriding concern. The building was only 75$ full and as he understood the situation, they were well below �he number of spaces to fill it. For the remaining 25$ of the office space, when people come in and want a potential use, he asked if they would stick to the criteria set forth in the � code or if they would take note of the fact that the ordinance anticipates a certain amount of use in parking spaces and this one was hardly used at all . Mr. Drell said that if we had a standard office permitted use going in, could they take note of it, and the answer was yes . Commissioner Ferguson noted that the applicant was being asked to come back if she wanted an additional 15 students and there obviously wasn't a parking problem. He was wondering why staff wanted her to come back. Mr. Drell answered that it was because initially 15 students was all that was being asked for. If the applicant had asked for 30 students, staff probably would have recommended approval . Since she only needs 15 right now, staff would rather have the luxury of making that decision later because the existing 25$ vacancy could be occupied by a business with a higher employee generator. Commissioner Ferguson asked the city attorney if it would be within the commission' s authority to approve 30 students subject to staff approval . Mr. Rudolph replied yes . Commissioner Ferguson stated that he would like to offer that as an amendment so that the applicant would only have to deal with staff and not have to come back before commission. ... 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1996 Commissioner Ferguson stated that he would move to amend condition no. 1 for CUP 96-17 to state that subject to staff � approval, the 30 student maximum would be approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jonathan said that along the lines of discussion he would explain why he would be opposed to that. The 2,000 square feet would normally be allowed eight parking spaces . If the use goes to 30 students, that was a foreseeable usage according to the city requirements which would need between 13 and 15 spaces . Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that would eventually double the usage from a normal office and prafessional user. His concern was that at the present time the ten or 12 students might bicycle, walk, or rideshare, but there was no guarantee of that. In a typical school most students use their own cars . If there were 30 students there could be 30 cars . Even though the city calculations would indicate a 15 space requirement, that could easily double and they could end up with a situation where instead of eight spaces, there was 25, 30 or more being required. Where the problem comes in is when the rest of the building fiZls up and typically, in his experience, in a successful office building even four per 1,000 was pushing it. That typically covered the employees and in that particular building if they drove by or went into the lot not only was the parking lot kind of difficult but there was no r place for overflow parking. It was very limited. He didn't mind making an exception, even when it goes to 30, but he felt the opportunity of reviewing the current status made sense and because it would be a miscellaneous item it should not cause a hardship to the applicant. It would not require a public hearing. He felt that would be a reasonable � compromise. Commissioner Ferguson said that the only reason he made the amendment to the conditional use permit was because as he understood the staff report, even if they went to 100� capacity and assuming that no one rode a bike, took the bus, or brought their own cars, there were still 51 extra parking spaces in that parking lot. He drove through the lot and there isn't a parking problem and if staff was comfortable with letting the applicant go up to 30 students, he didn' t mind delegating that to them in this instance. It was simply courtesy to the applicant. He would go with whatever the commission decided. Chairperson Beaty asked if there was a second to the motion with the amended condition no. 1 . � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1996 Action: '` Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1744 , approving CUP 96-17, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Vacation Inn Expansion, Zoning Ordinance Amendment Interpretation Concerning Applicability of Hotel Development Standards Requirinq Restaurants for Projects Approved Before Ordinance Adoption. Mr. Drell indicated that Vacation Inn would like to provide more services and create a more visible broader front on Highway 111 and adjacent to them was a restaurant with a poor track record. An ordinance was adopted in 1986 requiring hotels to be associated with restaurants that provide three meals and room service. This whole project, which included Vacation and Holiday Inns and this restaurant pad, was "r approved in 1984 before the ordinance and was not conditioned in any way to provide these services to each other. The purpose of the ordinance was to discourage lower quality hotels, not necessarily to encourage more restaurants . Vacation Inn would like to provide a program similar to Embassy Suites with a buffet breakfast, afternoon hors d'oeuvres, and cocktail hour. This would require the demolition of the existing restaurant building and expanding their lobby out with this dining facility, plus creating meeting rooms where the existing offices and lobby are and adding approximately ten more hotel rooms or suites . Staff believes that this is a legal non-conforming use grandfathered in and nat subject to this ordinance and neither of the properties are protected by the ordinance. The improvements were subject to the ordinance and since the purpose of the ordinance was to have higher quality hotels, which is what Vacation Inn would like to do here, staff is making the interpretation that this expansion is not subject to the ordinance and they can eliminate this restaurant. Staff was requesting Planning Commission' s concurrence. Mr. Drell noted that he would also be asking for concurrence from City Council . Commissioner Ferguson asked if it would be cleaner �.�, procedurally to say that the ordinance applied to the 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1996 improvement and to grant an exception to it. Mr. Drell indicated that there was no provision for an exception. Mr. � Rudolph stated that it would be an amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Drell noted that for a variance, an extreme hardship sort of finding had to be made. In this case the project was developed prior to the ordinance and the new improvement was at least as conforming as the existing operation. The use that the hotel is proposing in all other respects conforms to the permitted uses in the zone. He indicated that enforcement of this ordinance has always been a problem. He asked at what point in time if a small "Mom and Pop" hotel wanted to expand were they required to install a restaurant or provide the guests with room service. The goal was for new hotel development to be developed with restaurant and food service. This was not a requirement in effect when this project was approved. There were three separate pieces of property under no legal obligation for the restaurant to ever provide services to that hotel or to compel them to serve breakfast and there wasn't an exceptions procedure. Mr. Rudolph noted that there was a chapter of the zoning ordinance that deals with expansions of non-conforming uses, which this is, since it 's a legal non-conforming use. The ordinance was not crystal clear on this particular type of scenario. It recognizes that it is appropriate to expand a non-conforming use to a certain degree and if the legal non-conforming use were destroyed, it could be rebuilt. � There was recognition for some expansion. It was also thought that if they discontinued the use and replaced it with a new use, then they have lost their non-conforming status . It was not crystal clear in this sort of situation, factually speaking, whether they have gone so far that this would be a new use, or whether as staff feels that what they are doing is essentially consistent with current use and so should remain under the non-conforming protection. Mr. Drell noted that unlike other non-conforming uses they were talking about an absence of an activity that the ordinance requires hotels to be engaged in. All the uses they were currently engaged in and all the uses of the expansion were conforming uses . It was non-conforming not due to the uses they were engaged in, but because of a particular service they are not providing. Commissioner Ferguson said that it reminded him of the Palm Desert Lodge sign situation. Not the non-conforming monument sign on the ground, but the non-conforming big o1d-fashioned sign that the Architectural Review Commission found some merit in and a gandy black and white sign that was perfectly legal and was still there today. The applicant asked if he could simply make it look better and it sounded analogous to this and in that case staff said no and was taking a hard � 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1996 line and in this case they were saying okay. If it was just ""'' a matter of staff interpretation, he asked how the developer of a non-conforming use would know when they are not in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Drell explained �hat the commission was being asked to concur with staff 's interpretation. There was a significant distinction between those two cases . That sign/activity was illegal under today' s sign ordinance. The operation of a hotel on that property was a permitted use in the zone. Every activity the applicant is proposing in the expansion is a permitted use in the current resort commercial zone. It is the absence of a particular service which makes them non-conforming. Commissioner Ferguson asked if there was a distinction between a capital improvement and a service. Mr. Drell said yes, if anyone asked to build a sign like the one at Palm Desert Lodge, staff would say no, that it was illegal because that type of sign is specifically prohibited. Commissioner Ferguson noted that if someone wanted to build a hotel and not have room service, that would also be prohibited. Mr. Drell agreed that staff would say that they would have to provide room service. Commissioner Ferguson said that he didn't have a quarrel with the recommendation, he just wanted to be consistent. Mr. Drell replied that this was why it was in the record that the Planning Commission was concurring with staff ' s interpretation for expansion of existing hotels "� built prior to adoption of the ordinance and whether the expansion involves an elimination of an adjacent restaurant, that does not force them to be conforming with the new ordinance. Commissioner Jonathan noted that this was where the distinction is, that they were built prior to the ordinance. He agreed with staff 's interpretation and moved for approval . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion concur with staff interpretation of inapplicability of restaurant requirement, allowing expansion of Vacation Inn. Carried 5-0. X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE None. XI . COMMENTS 1 . Chairperson Beaty noted that staff was asking if there were any meetings that the commissioners knew they would r.,., be absent from during the summer months . He indicated 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1996 that the council cancelled their last meeting in July and their first meeting in August. Chairperson Beaty � said that he would probably be gone the first meeting in August, but he was not certain yet. Commissioner Jonathan said that he also would be gone on August 6th. Mr. Drell said that basically staff would avoid scheduling public hearings and if there were no public hearing items for date, the meeting would be cancelled. Staff asked if there would be any conflict for the meeting of July 2 . Mr. Drell noted that this was a fairly important meeting date because it would give applicants an opportunity to be at the next city council meeting; otherwise, they would have to wait until the fourth Thursday in August. 2 . Commissioner Ferguson noted that he spoke with Mr. Drell regarding the Redevelopment Agency presentation last Thursday. He and Commissioner Campbell both felt that it was more of a monologue than a dialogue, and while it was helpful for people who were familiar with Redevelopment Agency law and except for portions of it, it was not very helpful about what the City of Palm Desert was actually doing. They went through a litany of the ten housing development projects by name, through the four project areas with brief summary descriptions, but nothing deeper than that and he was hoping they � would have a great discussion on low and moderate income housing and the city's effort to fulfill that element. None of that was presented. He spoke to Mr. Ortega afterward the joint meeting and Mr. Ortega pledged to make himself or his staff available to the commission at any time. They just had to let him know. Commissioner Ferguson stated for the record that he was letting Mr. Ortega know right now that the commission would like to have additional briefings, at least he personally would, to talk about these specific areas . He indicated that Mr. Drell had mentioned to him that it might be a good idea to address the topics one at a time (i .e. take Project Area 1 one week and go through the history of that, how it developed, what the city is doing) and then take project areas 2, 3 and 4 or get into specific housing projects like Desert Rose and Desert Willow. He said he wanted to ask the rest of the commission if they concurred with that. If so, he would ask staff to collect topics from the commission and move forward. He proposed starting the first meeting with the director of the agency to inaugurate this and perhaps have his staff at meetings after that. � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1996 Commissioner Campbell concurred with all comments made '� by Commissioner Ferguson. Chairperson Beaty stated that his only concern was if the meetings were like the last one. Mr. Drell said that they were proposing single topic study sessions, either a half hour or an hour before the meeting. Chairperson Beaty said that would be fine with him. Commissioner Ferguson noted that if these were done during study session before the commission meetings, staff had asked if the commissioners would like to have dinner brought in to make it a working meeting. Mr. Drell suggested scheduling the study session �or one hour and having sandwiches or something like that brought in. Commissioner Ferguson noted that these wouldn't have to be scheduled for every meeting. They could space them out, but they needed to get a meaningful dialogue going between the "city' s largest developer" and the commission. Commissioner Campbell suggested once a month or every six weeks . Commissioner Jonathan asked what Commissioner Ferguson was trying to accomplish and what the objective was . Commissioner Ferguson stated that the objective was to help the commission become more effective in a number of "" ways . The commission saw a CVAG presentation on Project 2020 and they were asked for input about how the valley in general should develop over the next 26 years . He was recently placed on a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review Committee that was supposed to completely revise the current Zoning Ordinance, or make a recommendation to City Council with an eye towards economic development in Palm Desert specifically over the next 20 or 30 years . The Agency is acting as the developer in the sense that a number of its projects are economic development oriented and the city was carrying paper and property and selling much as a developer would towards economic development. Most of the packages that come before the commission come with very little notice and basically an appellate panel, which was also the executive director of the developer. He felt it would be much easier for him to know what was going on, to know where we are moving as a city, to offer contributions and comments where appropriate, and be able to make planning decisions on ancillary projects that come before the commission with an eye towards where the entire city was going over the next 20 to 30 years as opposed to getting a cold packet 72 hours before the meeting. Commissioner Jonathan asked for �..,, clarification that Commissioner Ferguson was looking for 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1996 a broader understanding of what was "coming down the pike" and when RDA has a project that comes before the � Planning Commission that was not adequate--he was looking for an understanding now. Commissioner Ferguson concurred that this was not adequate. Commissioner Jonathan asked if he was looking for a broader understanding of what their longer term goals and plans are. Commissioner Ferguson replied no. The economic development zoning policy of the city where it wants to move collectively, it seemed that there is a bicameral legislature here in Palm Desert where the Redevelopment Agency is a world unto itself, there was a City Manager and all the operational functions, and the commission was this sort of third entity as an advisory group to the city council and it seemed that as a municipality they could get a lot more "bang for their buck" if they were all working together as opposed to just reviewing a project when it was ready. He felt this would be heathy for the city. Commissioner Jonathan said that he didn't disagree with what Commissioner Ferguson was trying to accomplish and on a personal level he was in agreement, but wondered how that related to their role as planning commissioners . He felt it made sense to have a broader view of short term, medium term, and long term plans if there was a big "developer" out there that has such in mind, that being the RDA. He didn't know if ,� the commission needed to set up regular meetings and get involved in the political aspects of what RDA was all about because he didn't think that was within the commission' s purview, but he did think that it made sense to begin a dialogue and do it one step at a time and set up what the commission had originally intended, which was a dialogue. That could be done as a study session or a separate meeting where they wouldn't have to limit themselves to one issue or one area and could ask their questions and have a two-way dialogue as opposed to a monologue. Commissioner Ferguson said that point was well taken and when he spoke to Mr. Drell, that was his suggestion to Mr. Drell . Mr. Drell asked him what kind of questions he had and he started with Section 4 . Mr. Drell told him that they could spend one hour on Section 4 alone. Commissioner Ferguson' s response was that if it took an hour, he would like to spend that time because he wanted something substantive. Commissioner Jonathan suggested starting with an hour and having a general discussion, he didn't know if initially they wanted to limit themselves to one topic, and then based on the results of that study session they could decide where they want to go with it. Maybe they might want to have regular meetings, or possibly have r 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1996 them every six weeks and kind of see what happens and � take it one step at a time. Commissioner Ferguson stated that would be fine with him. Mr. Drell explained that the reason Mr. Ortega would like the topic to be somewhat limited was that he has staff that specializes to a certain degree and rather than having all members of the staff there, if it was a little more confined, then he could have whoever was in charge of that particular area present. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was concerned that they would get a staf f report and talking for an hour. He felt what might make sense for a beginning would be to have Mr. Ortega join them for a discussion and sandwiches at 6 : 00 p.m. one of these Tuesdays . Commissioner Jonathan said their commitment would be not to ask for specific numbers of units or square footages . Mr. Drell said that if he was in this position he would like to have some idea of what areas he needed to be familiar with to be able to respond. He felt that somewhat of an agenda needed to be done. Mr. Rudolph pointed out that this would be a Brown Act meeting so an agenda would have to be done. Mr. Drell noted that the agenda would have to describe what they planned to talk about. Commissioner Jonathan suggested a dialogue about short term, medium, and long term plans of the RDA. Commissioner Campbell stated '� that she would rather have a meeting with the individual sections covered. Chairperson Beaty felt the first meeting should be with Mr. Ortega. Mr. Drell suggested an overview discussion of the four project areas and generally what is going on in each one and the commission could always diverge and digress if they find one of those subjects more interesting than others . That would give them a general idea of what the topics would be. Chairperson Beaty asked if the commission wanted to schedule a date. Commissioner Ferguson said that he raised this issue for discussion and did not feel it needed a motion. He just wanted to ask Mr. Drell to set up the meeting under the general guidelines as discussed. He agreed with comments by Commissioner Jonathan. He had this discussion with Mr. Drell which was why he got a little more specific. At one point he was asked to write out his questions, which he found offensive. The compromise was to have the discussions by topic. If after the first meeting the commission felt it was a waste of time, then they wouldn't have them or if they wanted to get more specific, they would have that flexibility. Chairperson Beaty asked if staff .... 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1996 wanted to set up the general meeting for June 4 . Mr. Drell replied that he would try. � Chairperson Beaty stated that he didn' t want the record to show that the whole commission was dissatisfied with the joint meeting. Commissioner Ferguson agreed that the meeting was informative, but it was too broad. Chairperson Beaty felt that if it took that long just to list the topics, that needed to be done as an introduction. XII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Chairperson Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the May 21, 1996 meeting to June 4 , 1996 by minute motion. Carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7 :46 p.m. - _ � , ? ._ -'-�`� 1� z i PHILIP DR L, Secretary ° ATTEST: � �� /[ . PAUL R. BEATY, Chai erson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm r 14