Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0118 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JANUARY 18, 2000 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER �,., 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE � � * � � � * * * * � � � � * � � * * � � * * * � � * � � * � � � � � * � � * * * � * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. I11. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbefl Cindy Finerty Members Absent: Jim Lopez � Staff Present: Philip Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Consideration of the December 21 , 1999 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the December 21, 1999 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 3-0- 1 (Chairperson Jonathan abstained►. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent January 13, 2000 City Council actions. �`" VI. ORQL COMMUNICATIONS None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 ; � ; ..� VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 99-17 - NORMAN ELAM, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to consolidate two lots into one. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. a ; A. Case No. PP 99-22 - JOE COKER/BREEZE AIR, Applicant � Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow the addition of 9,260 square feet of office/industrial use to the existing building located at 75-145 St. Charles Place. Mr. Alvarez noted that plans were on display. He explained that this was an addition to an existing developed property located at 75-145 St. Charles Place. Currently there was a 20,000 square foot industrial/office building. The addition was proposed at 9,260 square feet. Specifically there were two components to this addition to the developed property. The first consisted of 4,200 square feet of warehouse use which would be directly adjacent to the existing structure. This portion of the addition would be directly connected and would have access to the adjacent building or Breeze Air facility. Two interior openings would give access to this component, the addition. From the exterior, this portion of the addition would be a continuation of the existing two story element. The existing building was 30 feet in height. As measured from the existing pad height, the two story element on the new vacant pad would measure 33 feet on that finished pad. The ordinance measured pad height from existing established grade, which at this point was 30 feet. The new two story element would not exceed 30 feet as measured from the 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMtSSION JANUARY 18, 2000 h.. existing grade. The second component/addition consisted of 5,000 square feet of office use. The spaces on the plans were shown as A and B. The areas would transition to single story, 23 feet maximum height. Architecturally, both the existing structure and the addition would blend in and appear as one structure. The parcels would be merged as part of a parcel map waiver at a later date. Exterior finishes such as split face masonry and stucco trim would also match the existing facility. The ARC granted preliminary approval on December 14 on a 3-0-2 vote with Commissioner Conner absent and Commissioners Holden and Van Vliet abstaining. Shortly thereafter Councilman Ferguson filed an appeal to the ARC decision citing architectural concerns, but in conversations with him, his concern was basically the processing (i.e., two of the commissioners abstaining from the vote). Mr. Alvarez noted that there were three commissioners that did grant a passing vote. In terms of parking and circulation, as shown on the site plan the adjacent parcel on which the addition would take place would have a new access. It would lead to parking along the south and west property lines. Carport structures would be located along the south property line. Staff believed there was adequate parking. The building would have 4,280 square w feet of usable office space which requires 17 off street parking spaces (i.e., four spaces per 1 ,000 square feet). The portion of the warehouse would require nine off street parking spaces and that space totaled 4,230. With the total of 26 off street parking spaces, there was a sufficient number to meet the city's parking requirement. He indicated the only other outstanding issue was the height issue, but due to the established pad height being 30 feet, this building met the ordinance requirements as defined. At no point would the new structure exceed the height of the existing structure. As far as code, it met the requirement. For purposes of CEQA, the project was a Class 2 categorical exemption and no further documentation was necessary. Staff believed all the requirements for the service industrial zoning could be met. The project site and architectural design were compatible with the existing project and other adjacent properties. He noted that there was a letter given to staff this afternoon by Elizabeth Rynder and she addressed her concern in relation to parking deficiencies that might be created not only due to parking spaces being occupied by storage of equipment. He indicated staff was just made aware of that and it could be addressed. He recommended approval subject to the conditions attached to the draft resolution. Chairperson Jonathan noted that Mr. Alvarez indicated in the staff report that the first component consisted of 4,230 square feet of warehouse plus 1 ,050 `" square feet of office. Mr. Alvarez clarified that the 1,000 square feet was 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 � included in the 4,200. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that the parking requirement was computed at two spaces/1 ,000 square feet and asked if the office component warranted, as it did in the other portion of the building, a 4/1 ,000 requirement. Mr. Alvarez said no. He indicated that within the industrial parking requirement, up to 20% was allocated for ancillary office use. Within that 4,000 square feet of industrial use, 1 ,000 square feet was within that scope. Chairperson Jonathan said the reason he was asking was because he understood that if an office use didn't exceed 20% of the total, then it qualified for the 2/1 ,000, but this office was over 25% or approximately 25% of the total component. Therefore, it wouldn't qualify for the 2/1 ,000 but should be 4/1 ,000. Mr. Alvarez reviewed the plans and explained that they took the total amount of office use and parked it at 4/1 ,000 and he believed that was the 5,000 number. The remainder of the square footage, which was the industrial portion, was parked at 2/1,000. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that the total size of the structure was 9,260 square feet. Of that, he asked what portion was warehouse and what portion was office. Mr. Alvarez indicated that 4,230 was warehouse and concurred that 5,030 was office. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff looked at the warehouse use and said that required 17 spaces and the 5,030 square feet of � office reduced by 15% was 9 based on the 4/1,000 requirement. Mr. Alvarez concurred. Chairperson Jonathan thanked Mr. Alvarez. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICK HOLDEN, the project architect, Holden & Johnson Architects at 44-267 Monterey Avenue, informed commission that the calculations were spelled out on the pfans and all the office area was figured as office. There was a 15% standard reduction for things like hallways, restrooms, and things that normally weren't rented out or used. The warehouse space was actually second floor space above the shop like the existing building. They had an eight-foot ceiling and that was where the applicant currently stored his supplies. He said the floor of two story portion of the new building was even with the old building and where it stepped closer to the adjacent property on the other side, the floor was actually down about three to three and a half feet with no physical connection between the two. For all practical purposes, where the lot steps down it was one story and where it was adjacent to Breeze Air, it was two story. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMtSStON JANUARY 18, 2000 r.. Chairperson Jonathan asked if this would be a self-occupied structure by Breeze Air Conditioning. Mr. Holden explained that the portion that physically connected to Breeze would be occupied by Breeze. Right now the owner wanted to separate the sheet metal from the stainless steel work and that would be connected and occupied by him. The office at the same level was for his foreman to run that shop and was physically connected. The one story portion down at the lower level was actually rental space and that was figured as total office. Chairperson Jonathan said the reason he was asking was because of concern expressed with the parking situation out there which he was familiar with and it wasn't this particular applicant that was causing it, but they were all aware that there was a parking situation there and he was wondering if there would be a fleet of trucks and if there might be an expansion that the commission should be concerned about in terms of the adequacy of the parking. �,,, Mr. Holden said that one of the things the owner asked him to design was to pull his fleet in. When the original building was designed, there was a garage door that closed off the back and when those trucks leave, it was open for parking because they all parked back there. The owner's plan was that his men would come in and drive through that door and there would be a gate in back of this building that would lock up his fleet and in the morning that gate would open and they would drive out. They had talked about it a little bit and the owner used the parking for parking. There was one area that the owner had storage in behind the building which was only about 20 feet deep, which wasn't parking, that would now become an aisle that they would have to clear out. He said it was a hard situation because a lot of those buildings were designed for warehouse use and were now occupied totally by office use and there were a lot of other buildings that used their parking lots for storage. He thought it was probably a code enforcement issue. Chairperson Jonathan agreed that it was and has been. Mr. Holden didn't know if it was easily solvable, but at least the commission could see what was going on. w.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 ° Commissioner Campbell pointed to the pictures and asked about the items which looked like barrels and if they would be removed. Mr. Holden said that was the portion he was talking about, which was about 20 feet deep. It wasn't deep enough for parking because they would have to put the cars in sideways, but that would become a roadway with the new parking lot. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was in favor of the project. From the way it was outlined by Mr. Holden, It didn't appea� that the parking would be impacted, but at the same time she would ask staff to do whatevef needed to be done, whether or not it was through code enforcement, to find out which businesses were taki�g up extra parking spaces. She wanted those businesses to be identified and dealt with accordingly. Commissioner Beaty said he was in total concurrence with Commissioner Finerty. He was well aware of the parking problem out there, but he wouldn't penalize this applicant for another's indiscretions. He would also endorse having staff find out what was going on. Commissioner Campbell indicated that she was in agreement with the other commissioners and was in favor of the project. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Chairperson Jonathan concurred with what had been said and reiterated the need to make an attempt to resolve the parking situation. This was last addressed a couple of years ago and one of the things that was going to happen, and he didn't believe it did happen, was that they we�e going to review options, such as what has been done on the other side of Cook Street in terms of maybe creating angled parking along the street. Some of those streets in the warehouse area were very wide and might lend themselves to that solution. He didn't know. He recognized that they might have a half empty area out on that side of Cook Street if they went into all the code violations and said those businesses had to eliminate all the office areas which should be warehouse use, because that was very prevalent. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 �.. He realized that would be extreme, but one of the solutions that was discussed was maybe grand fathering in existing users, but phasing in true code enforcement so that the offices constructed within warehouse areas would be eliminated over time, thereby easing the parking problem. Those were a couple of options that were discussed for resolving the problem and he would like to see staff address the issue and come back to the commission with a report. On the other hand, if everyone did what this applicant was doing with regards to their parking, hopefully in the f�ture they wouldn't have this problem. He didn't think there was any kind of a probiem with the application before the commission. He asked for further discussion. Commissioner Finerty suggested amending the motion to have this come back to the commission as a miscellaneous item in one or two months to make sure it was followed up upon. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Drell what kind of time he would need for the report. Commissioner Beaty felt that issue should not be attached to this project. Chairperson Jonathan agreed that it should be a separate motion. Mr. Drell said there were two options. The city was engaged in a code enforcement action on the other side of Cook Street where the parking problem was even more severe. Chairperson Jonathan said that �, what the commission was looking for was a study of the existing situation and maybe a proposal for possible solutions. Mr. Drell said they were trying to create more parking. Chairperson Jonathan agreed with either creating more parking, or phasing in code enforcement so that illegal uses were phased out. Mr. Drell said that other than people who may have bootlegged in offices, the city had not permitted any tenant improvements which have been conversions of any industrial space to office use. Staff has looked through the business licenses and determined that a good 90% of the businesses in those parks conform to the definition of the S.I. zone. The bigger problem had been the conversion of parking spaces to storage and/or sometimes just the prohibition of businesses forcing their employees to park on the street. He said he would give an update to commission. Chairperson Jonathan asked how long Mr. Drell would need. Mr. Smith pointed out that the Code Department had already done the study for Joni Drive. Mr. Drell suggested a month. Chairperson Jonathan said that he was interested in looking at the other side of Cook Street and seeing what was going on the east side. Mr. Drell said they would pull all the business licenses to know what kinds of businesses . were out there and indicated that staff had also tried to be vigilant when businesses come in to determine that they were in compliance or in a building that has been parked for office use. Staff would give the commission a summary of the businesses out there and direct Code Enforcement to do a � survey as they did on the other side to look for use of parking lot as storage. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 Chairperson Jonathan suggested that they also spot check and go into a few structures that look like they are taxing the parking situation and look inside to see what was in the building. Mr. Drell noted that for some businesses the 4/1 ,000 parking requirement wasn't enough. They ran into that with the Cold Call Cowboy business where 8/1 ,000 probably wouldn't be enough. Staff recently had another case submitted and there were more employees than parking spaces, but they had the 4/1 ,000 requirement. That was why they somehow needed to address it. It was more complicated when staff didn't see floor plans. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff would like a month. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan called for the vote on the motion. The motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1966, approving PP 99-22, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, directing staff or code enforcement to do a parking study and identify offending businesses and to come up with options to give relief to the parking congestion in this business park. Motion carried 4-0. Chairperson Jonathan informed commission that he would be abstaining on the following case since he was both a property owner in the vicinity and had a professional relationship with the applicant. He turned the meeting over to Vice Chairperson Beaty. B. Case No. PP 99-23 - CHRIS VAN VLIET, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and precise plan of design for a 12,768 square foot industrial/office complex on a 32,896 square foot lot at the southwest corner of Merle Street and Melanie Place, 42-525 Melanie Place. Mr. Smith noted that plans were on display and plans were also distributed to commission in their packets. He explained that the property was a corner lot at Merle and Melanie and the request was for a 12,768 square foot industrial office complex. He pointed out the location of Melanie Place along the east and Merle Drive along the north. He indicated there were two separate 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 �r.. buildings with the southerly building being predominantly warehouse facility with a small office section at the front. That was a single story building approximately 22 feet in height. The northerly building located on the south side of Merle Drive would be a two-story st►ucture, but the second story would not be a full second story. The second story would occupy some 40% of the ground floor area. Access was from Melanie Place on the east side of the property to a parking area located between the two buildings. At the west end of each building there were storage yards which also included parking spaces. Overall the project had a parking requirement for 29 spaces. In the basic parking area, the central open parking area, there were 33 spaces and there were an additional 5 spaces in the storage areas at the west end. Staff felt the parking was more than adequate for the use. Mr. Smith passed out the material sample board for the commission to review. He noted that Architectural Review Commission gave preliminary approval for the building architecture. He indicated that the colors were a desert scheme. He said the same thing applied to this one as the previous Breeze Air application in that Councilman Ferguson filed an appeal to this decision and a copy of that appeal was included in the packets where he outlined that basically if the commission ,� approved this application, then he would probably withdraw the appeal. Mr. Smith pointed out that findings for approval were outlined on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report. Environmentally staff was recommending certification of a Negative Declaration. Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions. Vice Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHRIS VAN VLIET, owner of the building, stated that they would be the primary occupants. He noted that Rick Holden of Holden & Johnson Architects was the architect and could answer any specific architectural questions the commission might have. Commissioner Campbell asked what kind of texture was being used. Mr. Van Vliet explained that for the main portion of the two buildings, the downstairs area, there would be split face block slurry coated which would be painted. It would look very similar to City Hall with the same type of texture on the brick. For the upstairs portion, on the one building there would be a smooth stucco finish. �... 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 � i � Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification on a portion of the buildings that showed lines and looked like something similar to motor homes. Mr. Van Vliet indicated there was an overhang structure on top for shading. It was a metal gridwork that was to shade the upper windows. Mr. Van Vliet said he had a question about the sidewalk requirement. He asked for reconsideration on the sidewalk material as opposed to putting in regular concrete. There were two reasons for that. One would be the natural desert feel and he didn't think a six-foot concrete sidewalk would fit in and there were also no adjacent sidewalks to it on adjacent properties. All the way from this corner piece to Cook Street it was already landscaped and there were no sidewalks there because the properties were developed previously. On the other side there were also no sidewalks. He said he would propose to use some type of material, like decomposed granite, or something with more of a natural sand-type feel or texture to it as opposed to a six-foot concrete sidewalk. Mr. Greenwood stated that from a Public Works Department perspective, � sidewalks were quite an issue in Palm Desert. Much of Palm Desert was developed without sidewalk and they have learned their lesson from that. The City has a substantial budget every year to try and install sidewalk where it wasn't installed when projects were developed. Public Works would be cautious about not having sidewalk. In any case, it would have to be referred to City Council for their action as to whether the project could be approved without sidewalk. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Greenwood if Mr. Van Vliet was required to have the sidewalk, if the other buildings would be required to also install sidewalks to extend to it. Mr. Greenwood explained that they didn't have a mechanism to force existing development to build sidewalks, but as new development occurred, they would also be required to build sidewalks. In order to join all the pieces, there would have to be a city project to go in and construct it. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if there was significant pedestrian traffic there. Mr. Greenwood said that industrial areas usually did have quite a bit of pedestrian traffic. He noted that the cars parked on the street and those people had to walk to the offices. At this point they were walking in the street. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 � Vice Chairperson Beaty said he understood the applicant's concern and asked if there were any other options other than a granite or gravel path. Perhaps a sidewalk of a different material. Mr. Van Vliet said they just wanted it to blend in to look natural. They weren't opposed to putting it in, but he didn't think it would ever be used and he couldn't imagine that it would ever go down to Cook Street all along there because of the fire suppression equipment that was in the way and CVWD would have to relocate everything, so it would be really impractical for the District and would cost tens of thousands of dollars to do that one stretch. He didn't know what the other options were. Vice Chairperson Beaty suggested colored concrete. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Drell about sidewalk staining which had been discussed at a Desert Willow Committee meeting. Mr. Drell explained that it was much harder to stain it once the cement was cured, but it could be done, �„� or they could color the concrete. O� there was fairly effective way of staining it during the curing which was a bit more economical. There were also all sorts of textures which he felt Mr. Van Vliet was aware of which could be done with concrete to make it look more natural. It wasn't going to be as natural as a decomposed granite path and would be more expensive, but on the other hand the sidewalk was in the right-of-way and it was more durable and maintainable with concrete than other material. There were options to not make it gray. Mr. Greenwood said that Public Works was willing to refer it to City Council. Mr. Drell noted that Public Works was acting on direction from the City Council. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOStTION to the proposal. MR. DICK BAXLEY, the owner of the building immediately south of the subject property, said his building was probably built in late 1988 and he did not have a sidewalk in front of his building. With respect to the request for granite, he suggested that perhaps commission would consider it. The walking pedestrian traffic that did exist was generally from the street to a building. Typically there was enough parking over there. Southwest Community just vacated his building, so there should � 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 � a � be plenty of street parking. Traffic would be from the street into a specific building. That would be his suggestion. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Baxley's building had the parking lot right in front. M�. Baxley said it was in the center. Vice Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell said she was in favor of the project. As stated by Mr. Greenwood, there had been problems with the sidewalk and there were problems on Portola where they never thought there would be pedestrian traffic and they now need it. As far as the concrete, for her home they added colored powder to make the concrete look brown, more like the Palm Springs Gold rock. She was in favor of the project, but she was in favor of having the sidewalk. � Commissioner Finerty concurred. She felt having a sidewalk was important � because this was at a corner and that made it all the more important. She felt that safety had to be their number one concern. Vice Chairperson Beaty stated that he was in concurrence and he would not be in favor of deleting the sidewalk condition and encouraged the applicant to discuss the matter with council. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Jonathan abstained►. lt was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1967, approving PP 99-23, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Jonathan abstained). Vice Chairperson Beaty tumed the meeting back over to Chairperson Jonathan. � : 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 � C. Case No. PP/CUP 99-21 - ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS, Applicant Request for approva! of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and precise plan/conditional use permit for a 117,000 square foot self-storage facility and 2,250 square foot automotive service facility master plan of development on 7.68 acres at the southeast comer of Country Club Drive and Harris Lane, 78-001 Country Club Drive. Mr. Smith noted that plans were on display. He indicated that the Freeway Commercial Overlay District was enacted in 1997 to add certain otherwise non- permitted uses to the permitted base zone for properties near freeway access points. This property was identified as such. He stated that Washington Street was located on the east, Country Club on the no�th and Harris Lane wrapped around on the west and south. Main access to the self-storage facility would be off of Harris Lane just south of Country Club Drive. Existing access points to Country Club to Harris and to Washington Street would continue to operate as it ,�, cuRently did. The Harris Lane intersection with Washington Street and the Harris Lane intersection with Country Club would be signalized in the future for full access purposes. The other accesses were right-in and right-out. The self storage portion of the plan took up the majority of the site at 117,000 square feet. The buildings along Harris Lane, along Country Club and along the east side of the site would be single story stn�ctures. The five buildings Iocated to the interior were two story buildings. Mr. Smith referred to the area in green shown on the landscape site plan and indicated there were significant landscape setback areas from Country Club Drive-97 feet. From Harris Lane there was 84 feet and 20 feet along Harris Lane at the south limit. The second portion of the request included the vacant land located between the Mobile Station and the existing retail commercial center at the northwest corner of Harris and Washington Street. They were looking at approximately a 4/10th of an acre site and the applicant had shown a proposed auto service facility on it. The request was before Architectural Review Commission. They basically had two issues. They asked the applicant to define further the adobe architecture and secondly ARC requested that the applicant provide additional screening of the auto service facility fronting on Washington Street. In fact, the applicant provided staff today with a revised landscape plan which was distributed to commission. The plan showed the additional landscaping in that area. Unfortunately, in order to obtain that additional landscape depth, it impacted on an existing driveway connection which goes �► across to the Mobil Station. Naturally, Mobil was not excited about losing the 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 � � � access driveway and he understood that they were here to speak and there was also correspondence that was included in commission packets. All of which led to pages 5 and 6 of the staff report where staff outlined four possible courses of action by the commission. Staff was suggesting Option No. 4 which would be to remove the auto service facility from this application at this point in time and not proceed with it. Staff had talked with representatives of the applicant. They had no problem with that. Staff's recommendation was that the commission approve the self-storage facility portion which occupies some 7.2 acres and leave the auto service facility for some future application at some future point in time. He noted that in the draft resolution the Public Works condition number 7 should read, "Landscape maintenance on Country Club and Harris Lane shall be the responsibility of the property owner." From a CEQA perspective, staff was recommending certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approval of the project as noted with just the self-storage facility. Commissioner Campbell asked what kind of buffer trees were being proposed for Harris Lane where the apartments were located to the west. Mr. Smith indicated that there were a whole series of inesquite trees shown in that area and some � mexican palo verdes. Both were shown as 24-inch box. He noted that the � mesquite trees usually did quite well and were a very fast growing tree. Commissioner Campbell asked if that was enough of a buffer so that the people from the second story would not be looking at all of the line of buildings. Mr. Smith noted that the single story buildings were only 11 feet high to begin with. Commissioner Campbell felt the finro story buildings in the middle were very prominent. Mr. Smith said they were around 22 feet high and were 100 feet removed from the street, plus the row of trees, plus the row of single story buildings. He didn't think the two story portion would be a problem. Commissioner Campbell asked if he thought these people would mind looking at that. Mr. Smith said he didn't know if they would mind. Mr. Drell pointed out that the existing County approval on this property was for a supermarket, so what was going to be there was the back end of a supermarket. Commissioner Campbell asked if the supermarket was going to be a lot higher than the proposed two stories. Mr. Drell commented that there would have been loading docks, etc., located there. Chairperson Jonathan asked what the procedure was for ARC approval. Mr. Smith said they granted preliminary approval. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification that ARC wanted the applicant to come back to resolve some of the architectural features. Mr. Smith explained that ARC offered the applicant the opportunity to come back before he went into working drawings to make sure he continued on the right path. The architectural detailing was the issue. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 �.. Chairperson Jonathan asked if ARC was satisfied that it would be addressed at a later time. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan noted that it was staff's recommendation to provide an additional finro parking spaces. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the trash enclosure was to be removed, it would remain close to the self-storage part of the application. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked for some clarification on the elimination of the driveway connection to the Mobil Station. If Mobil had a problem with that, what staff was suggesting was that the commission not approve that part of the apptication for the proposed auto service facility, but asked if the landscaping would be implemented as pa�t of this approval or if that landscaping was ancillary only to the proposed auto service portion. Mr. Smith said staff was suggesting that the westerly line of the auto service facility shown on the plan become the easterly limit of the approved project. Chairperson Jonathan indicated then that the landscaping bordering Washington would be mute at this point. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the one story building on Country Club which was the north end of the project, there was a drawing on display that showed buildings 1 and 4. He asked if that was the view the commission could expect to see from Country Club. Mr. Smith concurred that ,r„ it was elevation facing Country Club. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that drawing was fairly accurate in terms of what the working drawings would eventually reflect and what they would actually see there. Mr. Smith said there would be some redefinition on the detailing of the adobe elements of the architecture. Chairperson Jonathan asked if part of ARC's concern was because they recognized the sensitivity of that view and the large amount of traffic on Country Club and they didn't want a bland self-storage type stereotypical building. Mr. Smith said that, plus they recognized that the applicant was attempting to do an adobe style and felt that if he was going to do that he should do a good job of that type of architecture. Chairperson Jonathan asked for and received confirmation that that was where ARC was heading with their direction. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the two story element in the center of the project was tnaly two stones, or just two stories in height. He asked if there were going to be two levels of self- storage. Mr. Smith said yes. Chairperson Jonathan asked how people would access the second story. Mr. Smith deferred the question to the applicant. Chairperson Jonathan said he didn't see any outside stairwells and asked if Mr. Smith knew those details. Mr. Smith said his understanding was that they would be located in the interior. Chairperson Jonathan o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 MR. JAMES DOVE, representing Anthony Taylor Consultants, 304 Enterprise Street in Escondido, addressed the commission. He said that with regard to staff's report and the conditions set forth, they agreed with the conditions. They didn't have a problem with them. They were also in agreement with removing lot 4 from this approval process. He concurred that it was the proposed auto service facility. He also agreed with the correction to the Public Works conditions as noted by staff. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Dove could provide clarification on the second story and staircase questions. Mr. Dove said that because of the sensitive nature that would always be a concem with the fire department, they provided stairwells on both ends of the building and would have a center elevator. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they were exterior stairwells. Mr. Dove informed commission that they were interior stairwells. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was an elevator in each finro-story building and if they were also on the interior. Mr. Dove said yes and explained that the elevator door was on the exterior wall. Chairperson Jonathan commented that they wouldn't be bringing anything real heavy up there. Mr. Dove said not real heavy, but it would be within whatever the building code prescribed for them to do. He knew that typically they worked within 120 pounds a square foot, which was more than homes or apartment floors would carry, recognizing that they couldn't really load the floor with any more weight than they could actually get through the door. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. STUART RUBEN, Real Estate Counsel for Mobil Oil, stated that he was a little confused. The staff report said that by eliminating parcel 4 from the CUP application, because it was a permitted use, it didn't require a 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 +w.. CUP. He was interested in if there would be another hearing and an opportunity to be heard then. Mr. Smith explained that there would be a precise plan hearing on whatever use was eventually proposed on that piece of property with noticing going to property owners within 300 feet around it. Mr. Ruben asked if the same CUP standards would apply or not, i.e., materially injurious to neighboring properties, etc. Mr. Smith stated that the findings were the same. Mr. Ruben asked if they were just putting off the discussion. Mr. Smith said they were giving Mobil another opportunity to acquire the property or to negotiate some sort of settlement. Mr. Ruben said one of the problems was that to his knowledge, Mobil didn't �,,,, receive noticing of the Architectural Review Committee hearing. Mr. Smith informed Mr. Ruben that it was posted here at City Hall. Mr. Drell pointed out that it wasn't a public hearing. Mr. Ruben stated that they would have liked an opportunity to present their position then when they were discussing landscaping. He was hopeful that a compromise was possible and maybe some landscaping and the road could both stay and they looked forward to the opportunity to work with the developer of the center to see if that was possible. MR. WILLIAM G. SMITH, representing Foremost, stated that they welcomed the changes that staff had come up with because it gave them an opportunity to work further with Mobil. They didn't know that they could come to an agreement, but at least it gave them time to arbitrate the issues and to make further concessions if necessary in order to take care of the situation. They originally wanted to leave out lot 4 from the development project master plan, however, it was their understanding that it was required and that was why they put it in. They would have preferred to leave it on the outside to stand alone by itself and if he was correct, at this time if they did leave that project out, it would be straight PC-2 as far as the � requirements were concemed. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 = Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mr. William Smith indicated that would actually decrease the landscape requirement for that particular project if he remembered right and would actually drop it in half, from 30% to 15°/a. Chairperson Jonathan said those would be the minimum requirements. Mr. Smith said that he didn't see any problem with what staff had come up with. They were hoping they could work out an agreement with Mobil or with another buyer that would satisfy Mobil's situation. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor of the project and she would recommend approval with the conditions. , Commissioner Beaty concurred and commended staff,the applicant and Mobil Oil. � He hoped the situation would be resolved. Commissioner Finerty stated that she had some comments. Regarding the auto service center, she agreed with Architectural Review Commission regarding the need to screen, but if the need to screen meant closing the driveway that was most accessible for Mobil customers, it told her that it was simply in the wrong location to have the auto service center there. Additionally, an auto service center was a permitted use in the PC-2 zone, but she didn't see it as the best use. Frontage on Washington to her was a major issue and was not what she envisioned. She had recently voted against Jiffy Lube which was going in down the street next to Chevron. She didn't want to see Washington Street become the auto service center row. She felt that the service industrial zone was more appropriate for auto service centers. With regard to the self storage use, she was opposed because they recently approved self storage directly across the street. Again they talked about it being approved with a conditional use permit. She didn't feel it was the best use. It was an image issue. Country Club was a very prestigious road in Palm Desert and she didn't feel that self storage was going to flatter the city. She thought it needed to be hidden. Staff had recommended potential restaurant uses. She would concur with that, but not fast food. For those reasons she was opposed to the project. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 �.. Chairperson Jonathan originally agreed with those comments and after consideration ended up with the same conclusion as staff, which was to probably let free enterprise make those decisions in terms of use and hopefully the applicant had done his homewor{c and determined that a sufficient demand exists. He had knowledge that there were waiting lines for every self storage facility in the desert, so hopefully the applicant did their homework and there was sufficient demand. He would normally be opposed to a self storage use on Country Club and Washington because he thought that was a unique corner and once they put up a structure it was easier to put up than take down, so they were kind of stuck with it. What persuaded him in favor was the ample landscaping and hopefully the result would be as they see it in the drawings, which was something that was pleasurable to look at because he thought there would be a lot of traffic going by that intersection. He commended staff as well for doing a good job and the applicant for hopefully creating something that would be visually appealing. He was persuaded for that reason. He asked for a motion. Commissioner Campbell made the motion. Commissioner Beaty asked for clarification that it was with the deletion of pad four. Commissioner Campbell r,,, concurred. Commissioner Beaty stated that he would second the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the master plan of development pursuant to Case No. PP/CUP 99-21, subject to conditions, and certifying the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1968, approving PP/CUP 99-21, subject to conditions as amended. Motion caRied 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Proposed Neighborhood Commercial development at the southwest corner of Sheryl and Cook. Presentation by Rick Hughes. MR. RICK HUGHES, representing Simons Enterprises, the owner of the Golf Center, addressed the commission. ... 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 t Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Hughes in what capacity he was representing the owner. Mr. Hughes informed commission that he was a consultant and developer. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they were a tenant in the adjacent property. Mr. Hughes put up drawings and pointed out the location of the Golf Center and indicated that they would be addressing eight lots, the driving portion of the Golf Center and the three par nine-hole function of the facility. It had been owned by Simons Enterprises for about five years and has been operated as a family-oriented golf facility for primarily juniors and families � at a reasonable cost. Right now they were proposing to rezone part of the property to PC-2, donating the facility itself that services the golfing, meaning three par nine holes, the club house and the parking facility to the city to be operated as a junior golf facility. Their intention tonight was to present to the commission their concept and solicit comments to determine the disposition of the commission and whether or not the comments would a motivate them to go forward with the process and application. Referring to � the plans, he showed the commission the location of Cook Street and Sheryl and said that north of the property to the west were about 110 residential homes. Directly north across the street from this portion, was a condominium project with about 93 units. The frontage was apartments and O.P. zoned vacant land. North of that was an industrial section that has about 696 licensed users with 2,000 plus employees and then the Marriott. The high school was to the south. What they would like to do was take the driving range portion of the property, along with the property they had assembled on the frontage of Sheryt and Cook, and create a concept project. They would have component uses within the project and on the corner a convenience store/gas station. It would be on the vacant lot combined with the reservoir site. The 40,000 square feet would support the use in terms of needed footage. Then they would have 9,000 square feet of restaurant use. He was envisioning a three-meal restaurant such as Coco's, Baker's Square, that type of use, and probably a Starbucks. On the Sheryl frontage they would have anticipated uses like a day care center facility. As well they would have an additional 13,000 squace feet of PC-2 use on this strip. The intemal component would be office professional with . attorneys, accountants, dentists, and orthodontists. The large structure � immediately adjacent to the golf facility would be a bowling facility with 40 lanes, state of the art, a family recreation center. That would be in 20 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 �... combination with the junior golf facility and that was pretty much the anchor for the site. They incorporated a deceleration/acceleration lane on an existing curb cut now on the property to access off of Cook, so primarily traffic would use Cook. A secondary access would be the one already there. They would offer access to Sheryl for people exiting the project that wanted to go north so that it was right-in right-out only. The landscaping design was primarily desert. He said they copied the perimeter of Desert Willow. If they were to look at the elevation from Sheryl from the perspective of the residents of the condos, what they saw happening was the service station itself which was hidden with regard to the tanks and roofing and would sit behind the structure internal to the property. Then they had the easement which was currently residences and blended it into the project. Then they would have a berm, about a 15-foot setback, desert landscaping, a three and a half foot berm and a six-foot wall envisioned so that the people that traversed Shery! and lived across the street, the only new thing they would see would be roof line and parkway, whereas right now there were dirt lots. ;`�, Chairperson Jonathan asked if the service station would be located with the convenience center at the corner of Sheryl and Cook. Mr. Hughes concuRed and indicated that it would be about a 3,200 square foot building. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Hughes envisioned the comer of Sheryl and Cook being signalized. Mr. Hughes said at least stop signs on that comer. Chairperson Jonathan noted that they already had stop signs there. Mr. Hughes suggested a four-way stop, whereas currently there was only an east-west stop. He showed the commission a drawing of what it would look like from the east side of Cook toward San Jacinto. He clarified that it was from across the street facing east from San Jacinto. Harv's would be . to the back. The convenience store would be at the comer of Cook and Sheryl. He pointed out the location of the restaurant pad with outdoor dining, the building in the back would be the bowling alley which was about 250 feet from Sheryl, and then the Sheryl frontage property which would sit `-�► behind a perimeter wall. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Greenwood to comment on the possibility of having a signalized intersection. Mr. Greenwood noted that there had been discussions about this intersection before. He happened to be reviewing the Palm Desert traffic model which contained traffic volumes. The existing traffic volume on this portion of Cook Street was 28,000 per day. In the year 2020 it was projected to go to 40,000 per day. That was something like a 30°/a increase in traffic. He was sure the commission had seen the horrible operation of the four- way stop at Cook and Velie now. He would certainly never promote or let them consider an additional stop sign there. As to an additional signal, signals also caused quite a bit of delay. Public Works was not proposing a traffic signal at this location. The neighbors on both sides, the industrial neighbofiood on the east and the residential neighborhood on the west side of Cook at Sheryl and Merle all had access to the existing signal at Merle now. Since there was already access to that signal they were not proposing a signal at Sheryl. In fact, they would probably see some restrictions of left-tum movements as the volumes increased and safety became an issue. Mr. Hughes asked if the commission had questions. Commissioner Campbell stated that it was a beautiful project and the corner right now was an eyesore. She thought having something like this and having a family- oriented project would spruce up the street and would promote something on the north side too. Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Hughes had held meetings with the existing residents of the Sheryl area, specifically one residence there. He wondered if that resident was present. (She raised her hand.) Mr. Hughes acknowledged that she was present and informed commission that they had a neighborhood meeting about a month and a half ago and a number of neighbors showed up. Some were present tonight. He had a signed petition from about 17 other homeowners that couldn't be at the meeting that were in support of the project. He met with two of the board members of the condominium project and they were enthusiastic about it. He met with Ann Fuller of the industrial users in the Industrial Park. Some of them were present to support the project. The general consensus was that the service station/convenience store was of paramount need in that area. Commissioner Beaty felt the restaurant was also needed. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 �.. Mr. Hughes said they met with some of the residents in Belmonte and the comments were pretty much positive. Commissioner Beaty noted that this wasn't a public hearing and wondered if it was appropriate to give a show of hands of those in favor and those opposed. Mr. Drell said it was appropriate. After a show of hands, Commissioner Beaty said that at some point he would like to hear the concerns of the ones that were in opposition. Mr. Drell said that part of the question was if the proposal was within the realm of possibility and if the applicant should continue to invest money and time in the proposal. Commissioner Finerty asked what kind of height levels were being contemplated. Mr. Hughes said that all of the perimeter properties would be single-story and the intemal functions would be two stories. Everything on Sheryl and Cook would be a single story. Commissioner Finerty asked if they were talking about 18 feet. r.�. Mr. Hughes said that would be the maximum. Commissioner Finerty asked about the interior height of the two story buildings. Mr. Hughes said it would be whatever the code would allow. He thought it was 22 feet. Mr. Drell clarified that in the PC-2 zone it could be 30 feet, but lowering it given its neighbofiood nature and having something less than the maximum would probably be favorably considered. Mr. Hughes said they were considering that as well. The grade of the dirt from Sheryl to the wash slanted down, so even if he was to take advantage of the maximum height allowance, there was about a four-foot drop from the street surface curb level to the center of the property to that line of sight which would be diminished that much because of the grade going down. He said they were considering the view line for the neighborhood. The uses didn't demand maximizing the building capacity. Even though the zoning might allow 30, they were looking at around 22-24 feet high. � 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 ° Commissioner Beaty agreed with Commissioner Campbell that the corner was currently an eyesore and he would love to see something nice happen there. Traffic was a big issue and obviously they couldn't impact that intersection tremendously, but Mr. Greenwood would figure something out. He wasn't sure about a bowling alley and all that, but he liked the concept of the planned development very much. Commissioner Campbell asked if Palm Desert had a bowling alley. Commissioner Beaty said no. Commissioner Campbell said she didn't bowl, but was just wondering. Chairperson Jonathan said that in terms of feedback, he agreed with what had been said. He would say that the concerns of the residents would be paramount on his mind. Whenever a project comes into an existing residential neighborhood and is of a different nature than residential, then he was personally very sensitive to the concems of the existing residents. It sounded like Mr. Hughes had some good support out there. He urged him to talk to the ones who had objections to find out what their concerns were. If they were valid, maybe the�e was a way to ' deal with them in the early stages. The other concem that he would have was the � intersection of Sheryl and Cook. He thought that restricting the left-hand turn movement was not a feasible solution. He thought it was feasible from a technical standpoint, but from a practical standpoint he thought there would be strong objection. He didn't mean that it wasn't feasible from a technical standpoint and was sure it would resolve the problem if Mr. Greenwood believed that it did. To him that was a very critical issue with regards to the proposal because they had to proceed on the assumption that the project would be successful and if that was the case, the traffic at that intersection was horrible right now and he goes through that intersection an average of four, five, six times a day or more, particulariy coming out of Sheryl and trying to make that left out onto Cook. It was a struggle, especially now during the season and they had to wait a long, long time and it was often dangerous and there was just another accident there last week. It was a bad situation now and with a success project like the one proposed it would be intolerable. Forcing the traffic to go over to Merle he didn't think was a solution. Speaking as an individual, he thought Mr. Hughes would have to take a hard look at that situation and resolve it satisfactorily. He thought part of the solution would be a signalized intersection. Whether that was done in sync with the Merle light and with the Fred Waring one he didn't know. He wasn't sure where they were in terms of the synchronized lighting project, particularly on Cook, but that might be ; part of the solution. Obviously a light there would not be a problem if it had synchronized timing with the other lights because it wouldn't stop the flow of traffic 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 �... on Cook. Other than that, he would love to see that come around because it was kind of a blighted corner there and this would be a vast improvement. Commissioner Finerty shared Chairperson Jonathan's comments, especially with regard to the traffic. She used to work in that area and knew it was horrendous. Also, a Coco's or Baker's would be fine, but she would be adamantly opposed to any fast food. She would appreciate a nice coffee shop. Mr. Hughes asked if it would be safe to assume that processing an application might be well received. Commissioner Campbell said yes. Commissioner Beaty hoped that Mr. Hughes could address the issues, and he didn't know what the residents' issues were, but they were probably similar to the commission's. Mr. Hughes agreed that they were very similar and included traffic and signalization of the corner. �, Commissioner Beaty also suggested noise and obstn�ction of views. Mr. Hughes concurred. Chairperson Jonathan said that he thought Mr. Hughes was getting a green light so to speak. Mr. Hughes thanked the commission for their time. Chairperson Jonathan thanked him for his presentation and thanked the residents for showing up. Speaking to the residents, Chairperson Jonathan stated that if this project proceeded, there would be a public hearing process so hopefully the developer would be meeting with the residents early on, but they would always have an opportunity before anything was approved to appear before the Planning Commission and the City Council if they didn't like the decision of the P(anning Commission. He explained that there was a process whereby the residents would have an opportunity to give input and to direct the process as it moved along. Commissioner Beaty asked if it would be appropriate to circulate a sign-up sheet so that when something was noticed, these residents even if they weren't within 300 feet, would also be noticed. Mr. Drell said that was fine. Chairperson Jonathan noted that normally the public notice goes out to property owners within � 300 feet, so if they were renting they wouldn't receive a notice or if they were 301 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 ' feet away, they wouldn't get noticed. The other thing the residents should do if they were interested in this project was to stay in touch with the Planning Department and ask for Mr. Drell or Mr. Smith and ask about the status of the project. They should take some initiative on their own as well to stay up with the project and they would have that opportunity to be involved. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (January 4, 2000) Commissioner Finerty stated that there was a Desert Willow Committee meeting on January 4. They were tentatively scheduling the grand opening of the club house for March 1. Also there was hotel update, but she understood that there was a meeting with the developers after the January 4 meeting that Mr. Drell could � speak to. Mr. Drell stated that basically they had a hotel developer who was interested in developing the luxury hotel site. The developer's original idea was to build a seven-story hotel on the old conference center site, which was closest to the residential area off of Cook Street. He had floated some demonstration balloons, but the proposal was discouraged. The developer then moved over to the luxury hotel site which was originally approved as a five-story hotel. He still wants to build seven stories which would require a supplemental EIR analyzing view impacts of a taller hotel. Mr. Drell noted that the city started with the idea of a conference center back in 1984 and they probably gave up on a conference center in about 1989 and now a developer wanted to build a finro-story conference center on the conference center site. The developer would be building in essence both sites out simultaneously, one with a conference center and a luxury hotel site. It would be coming to the Planning Commission for review for the precise plans and supplemental E1R which would be a rather sophisticated view analysis and basically the applicant was moving full steam ahead. Commissioner Finerty asked if the proposal was for 250 rooms. Mr. Drell concurred and indicated that the luxury hotel was 500. The number of hotel rooms was the same as approved in the original plan (750 rooms). The reason for the seven stories instead of five was because the developer wanted more open space. When the city designed the pads, it was with the understanding that the golf course was the amenity. With a four or five-story hotel, they needed additional grounds and gardens and little 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2000 r.. interesting places. To have the room for that, the developer needed the extra stories to create the open space. The developer already had a good architect and had the basic development team assembled. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT `r It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adjouming the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m. � �'� 1' ! �: ,.�,,. � PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ATTEST: T AN, Chairperson Palm Desert Pla ning Commission /tm ... 27