Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0919 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 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 7:01 p.m. If. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 5, 2000 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, to approve the September 5, 2000 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent September 14, 2000 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS •• MR. BOB THEILLER, 45-616 Ocotillo Drive in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He stated that also in attendance with him from Casa Mia were Captain Blatsley, former President of the Homeowners Association; Fran Sterling, the current President of the Casa Mia Homeowners Association; and Gerry Solomon, the Director of the Association. He said that they were concerned about the property located directly across from Casa Mia, which was property east of Highway 74 and south of El Paseo. It was a vacant lot between Imago Gallery and Le Paon Restaurant. They were requesting that the zoning ordinance be amended to limit the exterior building heights to 30 feet. He understood that was the height limit on El Paseo. He was told by planning staff that the height limitation for this piece of property was 35 feet. They also requested in that zoning ordinance amendment that building not exceed two stories above ground level. They circulated petitions supporting that concept and request. Those petitions were circulated primarily east of Highway 74, south of El Paseo and going up Highway 74 by people who drive by it and those who live across from it or up the street from it that would be affected by the visual impact. He submitted the petition which he said contained 118 signatures of people who were residents within the area. He said there were 11 other signatures that they weren't submitting because they •� weren't complete. Chairperson Beaty asked if there were any immediate plans for developing that property. Mr. Drell said no although there was someone always looking at it for a hotel. He explained that the zoning was for a hotel, PC-4, which allows up to 35 feet in height. He said there was a three-story hotel approved on the property extending all the way down and including some of the existing parking lot. Staff would come back at the next meeting with some options of how to accomplish that if the commission wanted to pursue the request. They would in essence have to rezone the property. He said it wasn't on the agenda so the commission could direct staff to put it on the next agenda if they wanted to discuss it. Commissioner Jonathan asked if rezoning the property was an option where there was an existing property owner. Mr. Drell said that property could be rezoned based on consistency with the General Plan and in that case they would have to change the General Plan as well since it showed the property as a hotel use. Those things could be done as long as they went through the right process, although sometimes property owners weren't happy. He 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 explained that as long as they provided property owners with an economic use of their property, for instance if they rezoned it C-1 general commercial, it would be hard to argue against. On the other hand, if they rezoned it to cemetery or some use that wasn't particularly practical or profitable, one could argue against it. Here they were talking about a relatively small change from a three story to two story building. Chairperson Beaty asked if the concern was primarily the height. Mr. Theiller replied yes. He said the petition was written that if they wanted to do a three-story hotel at the lower height with a courtyard, they had no objection. The visual impact would be 30 feet. They thought that if El Paseo was protected with 30 feet that Highway 74 should also be protected with 30 feet. Chairperson Beaty thanked Mr. Theiller for his comments. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 00-20 - WHITE ROCK INVESTMENTS, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge six parcels into four parcels for four industrial buildings on the east side of Garand Avenue (39-750 Garand Avenue). Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vlll. 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. %No 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 A. Case No. PP 00-18 - ROBERT RICCIARDI for BERNARD DEBONNE, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan to construct a 10,000 square foot professional office building located at 44-901 Village Court. Mr. Alvarez stated that this property is located on Village Court which is an office subdivision just off of Highway 1 1 1 at the city's eastern boundary. The site consists of two lots located north of the existing Paine Webber building. To the west is Embassy Suites hotel. As mentioned the applicant was proposing a $10,004 square foot single story professional office building with a maximum height of 25 feet. Elevations and the site plan were on display. The building's architectural features resembled those found in other office buildings in the near vicinity. The Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval at the August 22, 2000 meeting. The approval was granted with the condition that a minimum of two landscape planters/islands be added along the east elevation to provide additional shade trees. There was a revised site plan provided and that satisfied the condition placed by ARC. Two parking spaces were eliminated, but a sufficient number was still being provided to meet the city requirement. Access would be from two.points on Village Court. Both would be shared by adjacent properties. The building total was 10,000 square feet and required a total of 40 off street parking spaces. With the elimination of two spaces along the east elevation, the property would still have a total or 43, which was sufficient to meet the standard. A letter was received from Red Hill Enterprises which expressed the approval of the property owners association granting preliminary approval. In terms of the development standards as outlined on page two of the staff report, the project met all the requirements of the office professional zone and was consistent with the general plan. The use and location were compatible and for purposes of CEQA, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact had been prepared and staff recommended adoption of the draft resolution subject to the attached conditions. Commissioner Campbell noted that the letter from Red Hill Enterprises said they were questioning some of the conditions or changes that ARC put on the project as far as landscaping. Mr. Alvarez said that regarding item two, the city's ordinance required one shade tree for every three parking spaces or that 50% of the parking lot be covered. That could be achieved as the property would have covered parking on either side, the north and south, and the 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 appropriate shade trees along the west side. Additional landscaping as required by ARC would be required on the east elevation. Commissioner Campbell also read that it would probably be necessary to remove the most northerly parking stall at this location to accommodate the landscaping. Mr. Alvarez felt that should be asked of the applicant but pointed out the planter in question and explained that it had been reduced and showed up on the revised site plan. That was because of the alignment of the driveway for Village Center Drive. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Suite A in Palm Desert, stated that he was in agreement with all the conditions and comments made by staff. They added three planters as requested by ARC. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. tow Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015, approving PP 00-18, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Drell recommended that the commission hear Public Hearing Item D before Item B since they were directly related. Commission concurred. D. Case No. ZOA 00-04 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for recommendation to City Council of approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings. Mr. Smith explained that the zoning ordinance amendment before commission related to detached accessory buildings in the rear yards of residential units. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 There was a moratorium in place, then an interim ordinance in place which only allowed persons on lots of 40,000 square feet or more to apply for these structures. That interim ordinance was still in place. After discussing this issue, Zoning Ordinance Review Committee made a recommendation that would create for permanent purposes an ordinance that allowed persons with property of 12,000 square feet or more to apply. They had then separated out standards for those requests. On lots of 40,000 square feet or more they could go to a maximum of 18 feet in height with a 1 :1 setback and a maximum coverage of 25% of the rear yard. With lots between 12,000 and 40,000 square feet, maximum height would be limited to 14 feet with the same 25% limit and 1 :1 height to setback ratio. The proposed ordinance would also provide for storage sheds of 100 square feet or less regardless of lot size. Open non-habitable gazebo-like structures were permitted. ZORC discussed subsection "E" which was highlighted on page two. Subsection E did not show up in the draft resolution for the ordinance. They were looking at creating an opportunity for new tracts of homes to be able to pre-identify lots within the tract, but not on the perimeter of the tract where regardless of the size of the lots, these detached structures would be acceptable. Ultimately ZORC chose not to include that subsection feeling that they were precluding existing residences from having it and treating new tracts in a different fashion and didn't feel that was reasonable so it did not appear. If commission felt the provision had merit, it could be added to the draft resolution. The proposed amendment was a Class 5 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes and no further documentation was necessary. Staff recommended that Planning Commission recommend approval to City Council. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Finerty moved for approval, Commissioner Campbell seconded it. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on this public hearing process. It was publicly noticed for Planning Commission and then it would be publicly noticed before City Council. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Chairperson Beaty called for a vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. ' 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 00-04. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 00-12 - RALENE SHIMON, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 2,100 square foot 18 feet high detached accessory building in the required rear yard (15 feet setback from rear property line) of the property at 77-905 Delaware Place, APN 637-180-034. Mr. Smith stated that the request was to permit a 2,100 square foot 18 foot high accessory building in the rear yard of the property at 77-905 Delaware Place. Plans were on display and copies were also provided in commission packets. Mr. Smith explained that the main home on the site had been previously approved through Architectural Review. It was his understanding at this point in time building permits on that dwelling had not been taken out from the Building Department. As noted previously, there was an urgency .. ordinance in place which allowed persons possessing property of 40,000 square feet or more to make application. That was the process that this applicant was going through. As noted in the review of the previous zoning ordinance amendment, it would comply with the new ordinance as well, subject to them moving the building. The building was currently sited 15 feet from the side and 15 feet from the rear. The ordinance the commission just recommended to the City Council would require minimum 18 feet from the side and from the rear. He said there was plenty of room to accomplish that, so staff's recommendation was approval of the conditional use permit subject to it being relocated to 18 and 18. He noted that condition 7 was added to the resolution which stated that they wanted to see some substantial headway with the main dwelling on the property before the building permit was taken out on this structure so that they could be assured that they weren't just left with an accessory structure. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. She spoke up from the audience and said no. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was the commission's desire to have the application comply with the new ordinance with the 18 foot setbacks, if that would create a design issue for the applicant. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 i MS. SHIMON said that it definitely wasn't to the rear yard. To the side she believed it was 15 feet for the house on both sides, but said she might be wrong. Currently the ordinance said 15 feet so they were changing the rear side to 18 feet because of the structure height. The only reason they wanted it there was because of some apartment buildings that they were attempting to somewhat block. That was their purpose in putting it that close to the side. They were talking about three feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was anything in the back that would prevent it from being moved. Ms. Shimon said no, it was an empty lot right now. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Lopez said he would move for approval with the 18-foot setback to height ratio. Commissioner Jonathan said he would second the motion. Chairperson Beaty asked for a definition of "required rear yard". Mr. Smith explained that it is the defined setback in the zone. In this area it happened to be 50 feet as opposed to the rear yard, which is the area in back of the dwelling. Mr. Drell clarified that there were a voluntary rear yard and a required one. Chairperson Beaty called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2017, approving CUP 00-12, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. PP/CUP 00-17 - JOHN F. KENNEDY MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan/conditional use permit to allow the j construction of a 5,737 square foot medical/office professional 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 tow building located at the southwest corner of San Gorgonio and San Carlos Avenue. Mr. Alvarez stated that the two properties are located at the southwest corner of San Gorgonio Way and San Carlos Avenue. The property is 24,394 square feet and is zoned R-3 multifamily residential. The general plan designation is office professional. As mentioned, the applicant was requesting approval to construct a 5,700 square foot office building. The R-3 zone currently stipulates that office use can be proposed in the R-3 zone if it is abutting, across the street or across an alley from a commercially zoned property. In this case the property is adjacent to commercially zoned property to the west that fronts San Pablo. Elevations and a site plan were on display. He said the building would be a single story structure with a maximum height of 20 feet. The building would be divided into two uses. They calculated that 56% of the building would be used as general office and 44% was proposed for medical office use. The proposed tenant or user of the building was the JFK Foundation, a non profit organization which provided financial and medical assistance to qualifying persons. The west side of the building would be used as general office space for the JFK Foundation. The east side would be used yr to provide pediatric and obstetric medical services. The elevations depicted a modern southwest style with light tan colors. Material samples were on display. ARC granted preliminary approval at its August 22, 2000 meeting. The only modification required by the commission was to the landscape plan. The landscape plan was also available. ARC requested that some of the plant material be up sized from one gallon to five gallons, etc., on the majority of the plant palette. To insure compatibility with the R-3 zone, R-3 development standards were used. The building met those requirements. In terms of parking and access, the property would have two access points. One directly off of San Gorgonio Way and the other an alley way directly to the west tying into another access. The building would have 4,877 square feet of building area and that included a 15% reduction for nonusable space. The 56% general office required 11 off street parking spaces and 44% medical office use required 13 off street parking spaces (at the 6/1 ,000 square foot standard). The combined total was 24 spaces and the site plan provided 25 spaces. He noted that a letter was just received from Frank Urrutia, the property owner to the south. He owns a two-story office building directly adjacent to the property. His concerns were outlined in his letter. Number one was the placement of rooftop mechanical equipment. They had addressed that issue with condition number 13 which would require screening of the equipment. ARC would have another opportunity to review that specific issue r� 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 j t with the approval of the final drawings. Number two addressed existing alley 'J paving adjacent to this project which he felt should be reconstructed to correct an existing drainage problem. Mr. Alvarez said he talked with the City Engineer and was informed that this was a private driveway. In terms of this project impacting that particular issue, there was no impact. This project would drain separately from its driveway out to San Gorgonio. The only way for that to be addressed was to have property owners to agree upon a solution for that issue themselves. Mr. Alvarez noted that the landscape plan was approved by ARC. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Urrutia was mistaken. ARC voted August 22 to approve the project and he assumed that they had landscape plans at that time. Mr. Alvarez said that ARC did have the plans at that point. Mr. Urrutia didn't specifically ask Mr. Alvarez for the landscape plan but it was available. Mr. Urrutia did get a copy of the elevations and site plan when he asked for them. Mr. Alvarez said that in terms of number 4 regarding the trash enclosure, the city agreed with Mr. Urrutia's recommendation to relocate it, which was also a condition of Public Works to further enhance not only the aesthetic location, but if they looked at the attached site plan, the adjacent property owner requested that the trash enclosure be relocated to the south. Staff concurred with that except they would it to be pushed further back Mal toward the south along the existing south property line wall to provide additional space for the trash enclosure. He recommended approval, subject to the addition of- a condition to specifically address the trash enclosure location. Mr. Alvarez stated that the plan was consistent with the development standards and general plan and recommended approval. In terms of CEQA, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact had been prepared. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI said that they didn't have any problems with the conditions. The reason they put the trash enclosure there was so that the doors wouldn't be facing the street. With the staff solution of moving it all the way to the south property line that was fine because they could mold the landscaping around it. The trash enclosure needed to be eight feet deep and the landscaping there was only seven, but they could bring it out. That was fine. In the condition regarding the screening, it would be below the parapet line. If someone was on a two-story level looking down on a single story, they would always see 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 the air-conditioning equipment and he was sure they see all the air- conditioning equipment on the commercial uses facing San Pablo. Usually the rule was if it was below the parapet it wasn't seen when looking straight onto the building. But if you're up in the second story looking down on someone's roof, it would always be seen. Mr. Drell noted that the commission had at its last meeting a building with some creative solutions to that because they had a building next to the freeway interchange off ramp at Cook Street and most people's view of the building coming off the freeway would be of a roof and they came up with some innovative ways to screen the rooftop equipment from above. Chairperson Beaty explained that they had some oval shaped panels, although it wasn't anything elaborate. Mr. Drell suggested that Mr. Ricciardi think of some creative ways to do that. Mr. Ricciardi noted that he did the office building in the Palms to Pines Center that was on the corner of El Paseo and Highway 1 1 1 . It was the Coast Federal Savings and Loan at one time. They had an air- conditioning unit up on the roof where it couldn't be seen, but at the same time the space on it was somewhat restricted so during the summer it would get kind of hot in there and the air conditioning wouldn't function as well. Chairperson Beaty indicated that this other design was open and suggested that Mr. Ricciardi look at it. It was very nice. Mr. Ricciardi said he would look at it and guessed that it was just some screening type of thing to put on the equipment. Commissioner Campbell commented that this would be a great improvement for that corner and she liked the grassy areas. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell said that she would move for approval with condition 13 in regard to more camouflaging of the air-conditioning equipment on the roof and the relocation of the trash enclosure. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2018, approving PP/CUP 00-17, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. CUP 00-07 - FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Per Planning Commission direction on September 5, 2000, presentation of a resolution denying a conditional use permit to allow expansion of First Baptist Church of Palm Desert (specifically expansion of the parking lot and creation of an outdoor recreation area) on a vacant lot fronting on Robin Road immediately east of the existing church facility at 43-400 Warner Trail. Mr. Drell indicated that the commission had the resolution of denial which was requested at the last meeting. Chairperson Beaty asked if there were any questions for staff. There were none. Chairperson Beaty asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2018, denying Case No. CUP 00-07. Motion carried 5-0. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 r. B. Case Nos. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-05, TT 29468, TT 29555 and DA 00-01 - ABD PALM DESERT 118, LLC, Applicant Per Planning Commission direction on September 5, 2000, presentation of a resolution denying a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential/Industrial to Low Density Residential/Park, a Change of Zone from R-1 12,000 to PR-4/Open Space, a Tentative Tract Map for 270 single family lots (8,000 square feet minimum) and one lot for park purposes, a nine lot Tentative Tract Map for financing purposes and a Development Agreement on 117.5 +/- acres at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Row Drive and Country Club Drive. Mr. Drell indicated that the commission had the resolution of denial which was requested at the last meeting. Chairperson Beaty asked if there were any questions for staff. There were none. Chairperson Beaty asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020, denying Case Nos. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-05, TT 29468, TT 29555 and DA 00-01 . Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (September 13, 2000) Commissioner Campbell stated that she did have an Art in Public Places meeting on September 13. They approved a sculpture for the building at the southeast corner of Fred Waring and Monterey, the second building by Jim Foxx. All the other matters were housekeeping matters. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (September 19, 2000) Commissioner Finerty indicated that this meeting was informational. The committee reviewed Westfield Shopping Town's landscaping plans and they were going back to the drawing board to a certain extent and would be bringing it back to the landscape committee. Mr. Drell said they basically directed them to comply with the landscaping ordinance in terms of number of trees and gave them flexibility to have greater density in some areas and lessor in others with the use of palm trees. In general they gave them direction to significantly increase the planting in the parking lot. E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (September 18, 2000) Commissioner Finerty indicated that the items were informational ones. F. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) G. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Jonathan asked for the status of the Zoning Ordinance amendment that staff would be drafting for the 1 :1 ratio. Mr. Smith said it would be at the next meeting. Mr. Drell informed commission that council approved the contract for Terra Nova Consultants to begin work on the general plan update which would also eventually turn into a more comprehensive zoning ordinance update as well, depending on how the general plan directed that. There would be major public participation and creation of a general plan committee which would have representation from all the major commissions in the city. He would be coming back to ask the commission to designate a member. Commissioner Jonathan volunteered to be on the committee. Commissioner Finerty noted that the city's holiday party would be on December 9. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 Commissioner Campbell said that she wanted to add to AIPP comments that they saw the preliminary design for the covered parking lot for the civic center parking lot. She said it was gorgeous. Commissioner Finerty agreed it was gorgeous, but it was brought up at the landscape committee that it was an expensive proposal. Mr. Drell said it was more expensive per parking space than actually building a parking structure. It was a custom-made piece of art. Chairperson Beaty asked if everyone had seen the community gardens project. He felt it was well done. Commission concurred. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone had received any calls about Cook Street. He said he received one earlier and this individual was going to be at the commission meeting but after he contacted his attorney, his attorney told him not to worry about it. He said that apparently there were many people upset about the traffic pattern and restriction on turns because of the center islands. Mr. Drell said that what they basically did was align 42nd Avenue but there were still ways get in and out. Chairperson Beaty said it was just a comment made to him. Commissioner Jonathan said there were significant traffic delays and it was a challenge to negotiate Cook Street right now because of everything, including the median strip and construction activity. Chairperson Beaty said that what the area business owners were upset about was the inability to turn left at a few places. He thought that it was probably done for safety reasons, but some of the merchants were very upset. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, to adjourn the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. PHIL P DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: Z A PAUL BEATY, Chairpers Palm Desert Planning Commission �.. /tm 15