Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1217 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 17, 2002 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Finerty called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Cindy Finerty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell, Vice Chairperson (arrived at 6:03 P.M.) Sabby Jonathan Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None r.. Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Dave Erwin, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Tech Mark Greenwood, Engineering Manager Marks Diercks, Transportation Engineer Homer Croy, ACM for Development Services Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary III. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION Request for Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) Threatened Litigation in connection with Case Nos. ZOA 02-02 and associated cases. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 4 1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, to adjourn to closed session to discuss the item on the agenda. Motion carried 4-0. The commission adjourned to closed session at 6:02 p.m. IV. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M. Chairperson Finerty reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. A. REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION. Action: Chairperson Finerty stated that there was no action to report. V. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. i VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Request for approval of the November 19, 2002 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the November 19, 2002 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. VII. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent December 12, 2002 actions. Vill. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. s MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 IX. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP/CUP 99-7 - PEARL DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a second one-year time extension of a precise plan/conditional use permit for a 250-unit continuing care retirement (age 62 and older) community on 10.3 acres on the west side of Fairhaven Drive south of Parkview Drive. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. X. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, 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. Case No. CUP 02-21 - SPRINT PCS, Applicant (Continued from November 19, 2002) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 55-foot high monopalm wireless telecommunications tower with adjacent equipment enclosure within a 11 '3" x 24'4" area to include a 7' to 8' high split-face block perimeter wall and planting of four new palm trees at heights of 45 feet, 40 feet, and 35 feet near the northeast corner of Little Bend Trail and Chia Drive in Ironwood Park. Chairperson Finerty noted that this item was withdrawn by the applicant and no action was needed. Action: None. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 B. Case Nos. PP 01-30, Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, TPM 30502 and Development Agreement - RILEY/CARVER, LLC, Applicant (Continued from December 3, 2002) Request for approval of: 1 ) a precise plan of design to allow the development of a 70-acre shopping center with 689,071 square feet of gross commercial space and related Subsequent Environmental Impact Report; 2) a tentative parcel map to subdivide 70 acres into 23 parcels; and 3) a development agreement as it relates to the Desert Gateway project. Chairperson Finerty noted that the public hearing was still open and asked if there was any further staff report. Mr. Drell noted that at the last meeting the commission brought up the issue that they recalled seeing different elevations and as it turned out, elevations were shown to the Planning Commission almost a year ago. They were never submitted to >.. staff. Different elevations were submitted with the application. That was the starting point from which the Architectural Commission kind of worked diligently to pull them up to an acceptable level. He said they probably never reached the level in certain respects in terms of the incorporation of the Santa Barbara style details as the original elevation, although the original elevation buildings had some physical dimension problems as it related to the requirements of Wal-Mart and Sam's. Mr. Drell stated that they now had some revised elevations which incorporated pretty much most of those architectural details and their architect could describe them. He said they also produced the north, south and east elevations. In reviewing them earlier in the day, Mr. Drell thought they seemed to have actually moved backwards. While the west facing elevations were substantially better, the north, south and east elevations seemed to have moved back a bit. So he thought they definitely moved significantly in the right direction in terms of how to incorporate Santa Barbara style architecture. He thought they would be recommending that this be referred back to the Architectural Commission, who never saw the elevation from a year ago, and ultimately revise and work with them; hopefully, fairly quickly to get all the elevations to their appropriate level. The Architectural Commission 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 tow was not scheduled to meet again until January 14 and he was inquiring with the chairman to see if they could meet sooner. He thought they made a lot of progress on the elevations and they would see that. The other issue brought up by the Planning Commission had to do with the design and landscaping of the big parking lot. Staff hadn't received any new exhibits to better illustrate how that was going to look with the varying plant height and species. With regard to the signal light on Dinah Shore east of Monterey, Mr. Drell said the issue was if a signal there would be appropriate. The applicant's traffic engineer submitted an analysis that indicated that it would be acceptable. The City's traffic engineer had taken issue with that and would be reporting on why he felt it was still not advisable to approve a signal there. Regarding the development agreement, staff received a draft of it yesterday. He said it was fairly simple and didn't anticipate a lot of debate about it, but it was still not ready for the commission to act on. He thought that covered the main issues and said the applicant was present to explain the changes in the architecture. He also noted that the EIR comment period ended and they did receive a whole list of comments. The consultant was preparing responses, but didn't believe he was prepared to give them tonight, so that would probably be at the next meeting, January 7. He stated that conceivably they could have that for them so they could go ahead and recommend relative to the supplemental EIR and maybe by then they could hopefully have all the other issues resolved as well. Chairperson Finerty stated that it was her understanding that staff was recommending a continuance to January 21 . She asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell thought they could try January 7. There was still benefit to resolve as many issues as they go along so that when the architecture got resolved, then they would be done. There were enough things hanging that it would be a benefit to meet on the 7th and try to move it further along at every meeting. His recommendation was a continuance to the 7th. Chairperson Finerty stated that the public hearing was open and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 MR. BILL CARVER, 72-955 Deergrass in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He informed commission that not only could they speak, but they could also listen and they heard loud and clear the position of the commission and hoped they had responded to that in a positive way. He said he was sent the packet of information that the commission also received, which included minutes of his remarks from about 14 months ago in which he was quoted as saying that he might very well need the commission's help in making sure they had the development in Palm Desert that truly spoke of what the city is all about. He said he wanted to start out by thanking the commission for making this possible. Mr. Carver indicated that there are three parts to this application that he would like to speak to. The first one was the elevations. He said they attempted to try to take the elevations from 14 months ago and incorporate as much as possible those requirements that Wal-Mart needed for their building. Fourteen months ago he didn't have Wal- Mart talking to him about what their building should look like. This was his concept of what he thought would look very nice in Palm Desert. So the changes they saw were the beginning of the changes that were needed for their operations. He said he didn't think they were significant. For example, the height of the building went from 42 feet to 48 feet as far as the Wal-Mart highest point. The other elements were increased slightly to facilitate their operations. He said there weren't a whole bunch of differences between what they saw some months ago and what they would end up with. The second thing that was brought up was the landscaping. Mr. Carver stated that the landscape architect brought some diagrams to show the commission what it would look like from the parking lot so they could see how their landscaping works to hide the asphalt that stretches from one side of this property from the north to the south. He said they used everything possible to try to make a parking lot that is different in terms of how it would look. Not initially, because they would be smaller plants, but probably three to five years down the line. These trees would not have enough canopy to be noticeable until that time. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 tow The next issue he wanted to address was the development agreement. The development agreement was something that is very important to them and it expires prior to the meeting they would have fixed for the City Council if they were delayed beyond this date. The City Council were the only people that had the authority to enact an ordinance that would extend the development agreement. It could not be done by just a letter extending the period of time. So that was a critical thing for them. The last issue was the EIR. There had been a number of comments that had come in and he asked their consultant, John Criste of Terra Nova, to address one or two of those issues so that they might know what those were, but they felt that most of them could be mitigated and responded to in a timely manner. He stated that what they were asking for at this time was a little bit different than normal, but they were asking the commission to approve the application this evening and move it on to Council with them agreeing that they would be going back to Architectural Review to have all of the fine points worked out on these plans so that it met with their approval. Should there be any significant changes in any of those elevations, they would bring them back to the Planning Commission before going to City Council. So they hoped that the commission tonight could give them a vote for approval on this project. Unless there were any questions, he said he would ask the landscape architect to come up and show the commission some things. Commissioner Campbell asked where there were other Wal-Mart superstores. Mr. Carver stated that there were none in California. He thought there were some in Arizona and didn't know if there were any in Nevada. He said the first one in California would probably be the one in La Quinta and they were under construction at Dune Palms and Highway 111 now, so he imagined it would be one of the first in California. Commissioner Campbell asked if he knew for sure there was one in Arizona. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 Mr. Carver said he couldn't say that for sure. He explained that the significant difference was that this one had food as a component of it. The name "super" meant that it had the food element within the building. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it would be appropriate for staff to comment on Mr. Carver's comment that he is seeking an approval because the agreement he has with the City will expire and would create more problems. Mr. Drell explained that it was staffs position that it didn't create problems but their attorneys didn't agree. He said that staffs position was that since we are controlling the timing of the process, it didn't make sense that we could extend the process out so his agreement expires. While his application is pending,that automatically extended the existing development agreement. The problem was for the Council to extend it, that required a hearing and that is what they were doing. They were going through a hearing process to extend it. Mr. Drell said that it was complicated with the fact that the commission hadn't even seen the document, but theoretically, the commission could recommend to the Council as a result of this hearing, that the Council adopt an ordinance that automatically extends the existing development agreement through the end of this process. The reason why he wasn't in favor originally of simply extending the development agreement as currently drafted for any significant period of time was because it specified that the County standards apply to any project built on the property and he could not recommend continuance of that provision beyond the expiration date other than as part of this process. In this process they were approving a new plan so the development agreement they would get would substitute whatever got approved by the City as the project description and would get rid of the old county standards. But theoretically, he thought the commission could make a motion to recommend to the Council that they extend the existing ordinance through the period it took to process this entitlement. Mr. Erwin confirmed that the action could be done by minute motion. Chairperson Finerty asked how long the applicant has known that the development agreement was going to expire on February 4, 2003. Mr. Drell said ten years. Chairperson Finerty asked why they needed to rush it through the normal process and make these exceptions when they hadn't been privy to the DDA or the EIR comments, they had significant issues with regard to 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 the grading, the landscaping, the massive parking lot, and the architecture. Mr. Drell said they wouldn't be waiving any of those. This was a legal issue and legal minds could disagree. They wouldn't be waiving any of the process. They would not be passing the project. All they would be saying is that for the purpose of extending the existing agreement through the period it took them to process this entitlement, the Council would amend that agreement to accomplish that. And they would continue with their business. That would just allay their fear that somehow halfway through this entitlement process the development agreement would disappear. That existing development agreement specifies that they can have a supermarket. The existing zone doesn't allow them to have a supermarket. The new development agreement would allow them to have a supermarket because they felt the circumstances out here are different from Highway 111. All this would do would allay this anxiety they have relative to the uncertain result of that agreement expiring while they were in the middle of this. Assuming they could convince the Council to do it, It was probably doable and was probably without any risk to the City. As far as the City was .. concerned, as a matter of our historical policy in terms of any extensions, whether they be precise plans, tentative maps, etc., if anyone files an application for the extension during the proper period, we don't let things expire while deciding whether to extend them or not and that was all they were doing here. But they had no confidence in that position as stated by us. They wanted to hear it from the Council. Mr. Erwin agreed that it has been our position for a number of years with regard to all land use zoning applications, including conditional use permits and subdivision maps. If there was a request for an extension and/or modification and the expiration would come up during that process, our position has always been that it is automatically extended to the end of that process, whenever that might be. If the commission wished, they could by minute motion recommend to the City Council that they pass an ordinance extending this development agreement for whatever time the commission felt was appropriate to allay their concerns that it may expire. Whether the Council would pass the ordinance or not, that was up to them. But it did require a public hearing. The commission has a noticed public hearing tonight. The period of time is a portion of the development agreement, so clearly it was on their agenda and they had the authority to act on that and could do so separately if they wished. The Council would have to have a 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 l j noticed public hearing with regard to that and make their decision on whether to extend it or not. In a situation where an application is in process and the development agreement expires during the process, Commissioner Jonathan said he understood that the City's position has been not to challenge that expiration and treat it as though it was extended. But he wanted to know if a third party has ever challenged the development agreement and whether in fact it is extended or expired. Mr. Erwin said no. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was possible if a third party challenged it, even though the applicant agreed that it was extended and the City has agreed not to challenge that extension, that in fact as a point of law that development agreement has lapsed. Mr. Erwin said that certainly someone could challenge that if they wished to do so. He didn't believe they would be successful, but it could be challenged. Mr. Drell pointed out that a development agreement is a contract between two parties. Typically the understanding between those two parties is more important in terms of the interpretation of that agreement than a third party. But they have a fix and it would not impact the commission's deliberation on the substance of the application. Mr. Erwin said he would have to go back and look at the old agreement to be sure, but there were certain review provisions and certainly abilities to allow staff to make some judgements in it as well. MR. ROBERT CURLEY of Cummins Curley and Associates at 7447 North Figuroa in Los Angeles, addressed the commission. He stated that he is the landscape architect for the project. He put some plans out on display and explained that, per Commissioner Jonathan's request, they had a plan which showed each tree species in its own unique color on the site plan. It wasn't meant to be pretty or a depiction of what the tree is in color form, it was just a key for them to be able to see how they were placed. He explained that it was a mosaic of trees, not just linear rows of trees. He said they have trees that wind through the site. The rows were linear, but they didn't have that linear row of trees like in a standard parking lot development. He said they also prepared two other exhibits at the request of Mr. Drell. He showed an elevation and described it as being the landscape projected against the Sam's Club with the trees and grading. He said what they would see with scaled figures were trees 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 and cars, a rough sketch. That was what was proposed on the landscape plan today that they went through with the Architectural Review, with Spencer Knight and Diane Hollinger. He said they had also given the commission a picture of each individual tree with a scaled figure next to it so they would be able to see how the trees vary in height compared to a scaled figure. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was the view if standing on Dinah Shore looking south. Mr. Curley said it was standing on Dinah Shore looking south. He pointed out a section through about the middle of the building from a human standing on the sidewalk at Dinah Shore looking up and what they would have--Sam's Club, the building, the landscaping and berm that comes across and graded down. He said they also prepared a book back in July for Spencer Knight to go through the plant palette for this project. He said they spent many hours on it and asked if they would like to see it and how they went through the process. He said it gives a whole new plant palette to the city for that zone up at the tow freeway. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan pointed to one drawing and said he guessed that the trees were 30 feet or more. Mr. Curley said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Carver indicated that maturation might take three to five years. Mr. Curley said that was probably true. Commissioner Jonathan asked how long it would be before they were looking at 30 foot plus trees. Mr. Curley said five to ten years depending on the species. Commissioner Jonathan asked to see the rendering of the whole parking lot. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 i Chairperson Finerty said it would be nice if they would make those plans available to the commission for the next meeting. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the plantings were the standard one tree for every three parking spaces as required under the shading ordinance. Mr. Curley said yes and indicated they were in a nine by six planting area per tree. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was the larger area that staff reported had a better success rate. Mr. Curley said yes, staff came up with that recommendation. Mr. Drell stated that was more than three times what their previous standard was in terms of size. He said that basically a big parking lot was a big pot, so they finally made the pot big enough for a tree to grow. Commissioner Jonathan asked for a guess of the survival rate after the one year warrantee period when plantings could be replaced. He asked if Mr. Curley had any experience with that. Mr. Curley said that normally it was 99%. That corner was a very tough environment. They were working very diligently with staff to come up with means and methods to insure the viability of this plant material. As the applicant told them, he plans to replace anything that succumbs over that year. Then they were left with having to wait another year and he understood they have a setback, but usually he didn't have plant material die on job sites, typically. Commissioner Jonathan noted that out here in the desert, we do. And in that particular location, it would be harsher or more so than most desert locations. Mr. Curley said it was probably the harshest desert environment and he understood that. That was why they went through such a process preparing this book and looking at species that have the best possible chance of surviving that environment. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 boo Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that the selection of the plant material took into consideration the success rate or survival rate for this location. Mr. Curley said yes. He stated he has worked with Spencer Knight and Diane Hollinger very diligently. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the book had a reference to what they would look like. Mr. Curley said it had a picture of every tree. Commissioner Jonathan thanked him. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any other questions for the landscape architect. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Curley would be in town the next day. Mr. Curley said no. too Commissioner Campbell said that in that case, she would like Mr. Carver to visit the parking lot behind her store, President's Plaza East, where there were four trees that were planted in the parking lot by Jerry Clark, the City's landscape advisor before Mr. Knight. She said that Mr. Clark planted four trees and they had never really been planted in the desert and those trees were probably five years old and they had done extremely well. They were deciduous, but not like the other trees in the parking lot which looked scrawny compared to these trees. They have grown well and were beautiful shade trees and were green all year round. She said she had the name of the tree at her store and where they were purchased, so she would like Mr. Carver to come by and take a picture of it and show it to him to see how beautiful those trees are. She thought that would be a great tree for a parking lot. Mr. Carver said he was in Jensen's November 6 and he was parked under this really nice tree and it blew over. He said it was a mesquite tree. He thought it looked like a great tree and then it fell over on someone's car. tow 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 Commissioner Campbell said the tree she was talking about wasn't a mesquite, but another type of tree, and hoped he would come by and take a picture of it for his landscape architect. Chairperson Finerty asked who would be next in the applicant's presentation. Mr. Carver explained that they received some comments on the EIR that was circulated. The comment date expired on Friday the 13th, so they hadn't had a chance to make responses to those comments, but he thought Mr. Criste could give the commission an idea of what kind of comments came in. MR. JOHN CRISTE, Terra Nova Planning and Research at 400 South Farrell Drive in Palm Springs, addressed the commission. He stated that they received about a half dozen comment letters. Most of them were pretty standard kinds of comments, including one from CVAG, a very standard letter from CVWD, a letter from the County Economic Development Agency, which has a lease on the northeast corner of Dinah Shore and Monterey. They were concerned about access and he said there shouldn't be a problem with that. Another letter was from Edison. He said there was an extensive letter from a consultant lawyer and he had gone through all of those comments and thought they looked addressable. They seemed to be more a matter of clarification than anything. SCAG sent in a letter. It was mostly recognition that the project and the environmental study was in compliance with regional policies, so there seemed to be no outstanding issue with regard to that. He said they would be writing detailed responses to each of the comments and incorporating them into the Final EIR and he planned to have them in advance of the commission meeting on the 7th. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anyone else that wished to speak. There was no response. Chairperson Finerty asked if it would be appropriate to outline any further concerns they might have. Mr. Drell said yes. Chairperson Finerty asked if any of the commissioner's wished to add anything to their previous comments. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 Commissioner Jonathan said he would like to have some discussion on where they go from here. Chairperson Finerty stated that she was still troubled with the project being 90 feet above Dinah Shore and she was going to make the comment that at the Costco lot as an example, Costco was actually lower then Petsmart by probably about ten feet and the Costco center had not been hurt by being lower and she was wondering if some sort of terracing would help and might be another way of trying to deal with the grading issue. She also had some other general comments. With regard to where they first come in the center off of Monterey and the first cross street in the parking lot. It would tend to allow the cars to back up onto Monterey and it would be better if they could redesign the parking lot so that the cars could go closer to the building as opposed to having that tendency of backing up. She also wanted to know where batteries and tires would be stored and if they were going to be put in dumpsters or if they would be stored inside. There had been a lot of talk about the Santa Barbara mission style being requested and she was trying to figure out who requested it, because she hadn't been able to get an answer yet. Mr. Drell thought it was a decision of the developer. It wasn't requested by the City. Chairperson Finerty asked for clarification that it was a design the developer chose. Mr. Drell said yes. Chairperson Finerty thanked Mr. Drell. Mr. Drell said that in terms of looking at these new elevations, the commission might want to comment on them. If they were closer to their expectations as opposed to what they saw. He didn't know if they wanted to comment on the other three elevations, but at least on the fronts which obviously had all of the details. Chairperson Finerty stated that her personal preference would be to start over on their architecture. She didn't think the Santa Barbara mission style was appropriate for the big box and she didn't know why they would have chosen that. If this was going to be the gateway to Palm Desert and they were calling it Desert Gateway, they had to do something much better than what they had before them now. The three major issues remained grading, architecture and the massive parking lot. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was actually very pleased and very impressed with the progress they have seen on the part of the applicant. He 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 was disturbed at the design they saw at the last meeting because the original design presented to them a while back was for lack of a better description "Santa Barbara mission style." He thought we created our own styles and to try and put a label on it was difficult. So whatever it was they saw the first time they liked. What they saw last time was a departure from that and he thought they gave the applicant the message to go back to the original style they saw to begin with and thought he had done that very effectively. So he looked at the drawings and renderings and to him what the applicant had accomplished was he took the big box and made it look more like a collection of small boxes with a variety of interest features and changes in elevation with trellises and faux windows and bars and so forth. He thought it was very attractive. So in terms of the elevations, he was favorably impressed. He noted that the applicant requested that they be allowed to proceed to Council and then go back to ARC with any detail work. He said he didn't have a problem with that and thought that was done normally any way in terms of the building process, so he was okay with that. Conceptually he didn't see a need to go back to ARC because this was an extension of the design that was approved for the pads along the rest of the site and the commission's direction was to make the development consistent throughout by applying that same design to the other two big buildings and he thought the applicant had done that. So the applicant was requesting to move forward in that regard and he was okay with that. With regards to the development agreement, again, there had been a suggestion that they make a recommendation to Council to adopt an ordinance extending the existing development agreement, not to draft a new one, but to extend the existing one for what would probably amount to one month or a few months at the most. But to let the process play out and create an opportunity for the amended development agreement to be drafted and adopted. Again, he was okay with that. He said he was concerned about the parking lot, but was at a loss as to what they could do beyond what had been presented to them. It was clear to him that the applicant has worked diligently with City representatives and hopefully they have successfully selected a palette that will survive and will accomplish the intended objective for the parking lot. He just didn't want to end up with just cement there in ten years. He had seen other centers do that. Beyond the normal tools that we employ to place the obligation and the 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 responsibility and liability on the property owner to maintain it, he didn't know what else they could do. In summary, he was pleased with what the applicant has done and would be in favor of letting the application proceed as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. The rendering of the buildings they had was a lot better than what they saw last time and reminded her a little bit of the Ralph's shopping center on Cook. The same type of architecture. She had no problem with that. She said she did bring up the parking last time. She was also afraid they might have the same kind of problem that occurs at Desert Crossing where there is a stop sign or cross traffic which creates a problem at Highway 111 when entering Desert Crossing. So she didn't know if that could be adjusted in any way or not. As far as the elevation, from what they saw in the rendering and were told at the last meeting, there would be quite a berm and quite a bit of landscaping there so that would camouflage the west side of the Sam's Club. As far as the development agreement, she was in favor of requesting the �.. Council to go ahead and grant an extension and go ahead with the process as they have been doing. Commissioner Tschopp thought the architecture was starting to look very good. For some reason he preferred the Sam's Club of the two and thought it looked a lot better. When he looked at the Wal-Mart, while he wasn't an architect, he thought the left side or north side needed more of a pop-out or something of that nature to break up that long run of building there. He didn't really like 40 acres of parking lot, but he wasn't sure on buildings on this size what the alternative was. All they needed to do was look to the west to see the problems at the parking lot in front of the theater with the trees and the sand that piles up. He had been to the theater there and said it was a tough area to design in and hoped that they not only did a good job of putting in the planting materials to break up that large expanse, but he hoped they would put in some type of agreement to maintain it, both the plantings and the cleanup of the sand which would accumulate. He said he read the engineer's report regarding the traffic signal and still was not convinced that a traffic signal should not be put in. He wanted to hear a little more about that, but thought going forward, they should at least make a proposal in the agreement that some day down the road, if necessary, they 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 could quickly put in a traffic signal. If the center is as successful as it could be, he was more convinced that there would be a need for a stop light there on Dinah Shore. Again, he thought the applicant had been pursuing in good faith the development of the property and to allay his anxiety, they should just codify the current process and the intent of the City and the developer on that agreement. Commissioner Lopez said he had to keep reminding himself that this is a two phase project in that what they would see in the early years would be a lot different from what they were seeing as the final project and this project would take quite a while to get done and the landscape alone would take five to ten years to mature to a point it would even be close to what they think it would look like in the future, but the first several years would be tough. Having said that, he thought the elevations were better. He agreed that Sam's Club was a pretty interesting building there. But it was getting better and better. He had the same concerns as Mr. Carver as far as the elevations and landscaping in the parking lot, the EIR, and the development agreement. He thought they needed to take a look at and continue to consider, but didn't see a problem with moving this ahead. But he did want to express his concern regarding what this parking lot would be in the beginning and what it would look like ten years from now. He thought they were all tremendously concerned about that. Access into the facility off Monterey was another tremendous concern he thought they should have. Day in and day out he saw where they developed these big projects and they could still look at Costco during the prime season when trying to get into that particular area. There was still a problem from the back up from the gas station even though they tried to fix that. But he thought they should move ahead. They could do the development either by minute motion or let it continue as we progress through the decision process. He didn't think they needed to worry about whether or not it was going to expire. But if it made the applicant more comfortable, then they could request the proper ordinance to be adopted. He thought they could move ahead. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a motion. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would make a motion to move the matter forward, particularly with regard to the development agreement. He suggested that be done by minute motion and recommend to City Council that they adopt the ordinance to extend the development agreement through the completion of the application process. The other part of his motion would address the precise plan of design as the details move forward through staff, Council and ARC. He agreed with the comments. It made sense to him about the Wal-Mart building. He thought the Sam's Club building did look better and he thought that part of the reason it did was because it has more features, more interest and depth. He wanted to see more of that on the Wal- Mart building, particularly on the north side, the gardening center. He thought that lent itself to a little more creativity there. They could add more trellises or cross bar features. He wasn't talking about a major change. In the motion, he would encourage the process to proceed with attention to Wal-Mart and improvement and enhancement more along the gardening center. With regard to the parking lot, he didn't know if it was possible to do at this stage, but he suggested breaking up the parking lot by moving pads to the interior. But it might be too late in the process to do that and he understood. Short of that, and even in spite of that, he would agree with the comments made earlier that the upkeep requirement be worded in such a way that it is easily enforceable. Mr. Drell said ultimately it was enforceable through a law suit, which the City has done before. He thought the biggest change was we have learned a lot about how to grow trees in parking lots and have had some success to which Commissioner Campbell could attest. Those trees in that President's Plaza parking lot which they tried once before and they all died, now they have trees that are all growing, so he thought that we are doing better and are learning. He said he made a suggestion relative to the expansive asphalt by incorporating fingers periodically every 20 spaces or so which would narrow it. No matter what the trees did, there would be 70 feet or 65 feet of asphalt between the rows of trees. If they incorporate even a few of those fingers, when they look down the row they see that 70 feet or 65 feet narrowed to about 38 feet because they were seeing trees in the parking lot. Getting back to the process, Mr. Drell said that the commission could direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval. What they were saying was that they were generally accepting the design of the precise plan which was technically what their purview is. Their comments on landscaping and 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 architecture were simply that. That was technically the Architectural Commission's. Because these are new elevations, the commission was asking them to look at them. But they could pass on the precise plan which was what they were really seeing there with all their other comments. He said staff would still recommend that the commission continue this to the 7th because of the CEQA process. They should see those responses to comments and have the actual draft of the development agreement in front of them. That way they would be dotting all the is and crossing all the t's. Hopefully they could do that on the 7th. He said he would also like to see some elevations of the other sides of the buildings and then have that all ready for the formal action on the 7th. He said they could move on the minute motion to extend the development agreement so they could notice it for the Council meeting on the 9th. That was his suggestion. That they have the minute motion on the extension and direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval of the precise plan for the 7th. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that Mr. Drell wanted him to amend the motion to approve the precise plan. Mr. Drell clarified that it would be to direct staff to prepare a resolution. He said they submitted to the commission a set of the conditions of approval and asked for any suggestions they wanted in terms of additional conditions to add to it and staff would come back with both the draft development agreement and the resolution recommending City Council approval of the precise plan on the 7th. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the Planning Commission wouldn't be approving the precise plan, they would be asking staff to come back with a resolution. Mr. Drell concurred. He said that part of the approval of the precise plan was certification of the Supplemental EIR and the commission had not seen the responses to comments yet. Typically they would not normally act on that EIR until they have gotten the response to the comments from the consultant relative to the responses. Chairperson Finerty pointed out that they haven't seen the comments. Mr. Drell said that the conclusion they reach when they certify or recommend certification of the EIR is that all of the comments have been addressed. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that the actual approval of the precise plan would occur, if it occurred, on the 7th. Mr. Drell said it would be a recommendation to Council. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that delayed 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 the process in terms of the council meeting, or if he was saying it would still be scheduled at the same time anyway. Mr. Drell said that obviously they would be moving ahead. The critical nature was there is obviously an issue in terms of timing and construction which was of concern to the applicant. The more immediate concern of the applicant is the expiration of the development agreement. So they were going to address that and the commission could move that on today and get that on the Council agenda in January before the expiration of the development agreement. Staffs assumption was that if Council was inclined, that critical milestone would disappear. Mr. Drell said that he would try to get the Architectural Commission to meet sooner rather than later. In either case this could be before the Council the second meeting in January. If the commission on the 7th said it didn't have to come back to them, the Architectural Commission meets on the 14th and they could schedule the City Council hearing the 23rd of January. Commissioner Jonathan asked why ARC had to come back into the equation. Mr. Drell explained that they are the recommending body on architecture, not the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they had made their recommendation. Mr. Drell said they had not seen the original elevations. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the process normally begins with ARC. They come up with their recommendations and then it comes to the Planning Commission. Mr. Drell said no. ARC approves elevations. They are preeminent in terms of decision making relative to landscaping and architecture. Commissioner Jonathan asked why the Planning Commission even looked at elevations and spent their time discussing them. Mr. Drell said just like ARC makes comments and recommendations on site planning and land use. That was how the system was set. That was why the appeal of the architecture occurs at the Architectural Commission and that goes directly to the Council. When there is an appeal of an architectural issue, it didn't go to Planning Commission. It went directly to the City Council. Commissioner Jonathan said he understood that, but pointed out that the Planning Commission has consistently made changes to appearances of buildings. They have addressed roof lines and a variety of features that didn't cause the matter to go back to ARC. Mr. Drell said if it was minor in nature, it didn't go back. In this case, these were elevations ARC has never seen, 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 a period. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was Mr. Drell's recommendation or if it was a fact as a matter of process. Mr. Drell concurred that it was a matter of process. The Architectural Commission is the decision making body relative to architecture. Chairperson Finerty said that what Architectural Review Committee approved, the Planning Commission disliked vehemently. And ARC hasn't seen the latest, but they're the ones who are supposed to be making the decision. She wanted to know how something could go to the Council with an ARC recommendation that was in opposition to what the Planning Commission preferred. Mr. Drell said it wasn't in opposition, it was absent because the elevations the applicant was now carrying forward were elevations the Architectural Commission had never seen. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they have the authority to not approve elevations. Mr. Drell said that technically, they didn't. Commissioner Jonathan asked how they could send it back to ARC. Mr. Drell said they weren't sending it back. It would go back to ARC whether or not the Planning Commission sent it back or not because the legally constituted commission directed to make recommendations or approval concerning architecture has never seen these elevations. They saw other elevations and took an action on the other „ elevations, but those elevations weren't the ones going forward. So it was both proper and respectful. They labored for about six or eight weeks from something that looked like the Alamo, so he thought it would be proper as defined by ordinance and respectful. The Council expects a recommendation they are seeing and ultimately approving from the commission whose responsibility is to review elevations. Commissioner Jonathan said he wasn't necessarily disagreeing with him, but he also heard another perspective and was trying to learn something about process here. The other perspective that had been offered to him is they want the Planning Commission to act independently and that was why they had a beginning with ARC and then the Planning Commission independently give an objective and educated opinion and the Council would make a final decision. That was why he was asking if what Mr. Drell was telling him was a matter of fact and process or if it was simply Mr. Drell's opinion, which he might or might not disagree with. Mr. Drell replied that it was a matter of fact and process that the identified body for the review of architectural was Architectural Commission. Commissioner Jonathan said that was confusing. If it was ARC's decision, how could the Planning Commission make changes? Mr. Drell said that they could 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 comment on it. He agreed that it was confusing, but that was what we had and it worked 99% of the time. He noted that this was an unusual situation where a design of the project that was originally shown to the Planning Commission was never shown to ARC. If he put themselves in their place, they would be quite irritated by that fact. Forgetting how they thought ARC was going to feel, Commissioner Jonathan said he wanted to address process. Mr. Drell said that the legally constituted authority commission for the review of architecture is the Architectural Review Commission. Commissioner Jonathan asked why the Planning Commission spent time looking through and then spent time asking the applicant to spend time to change it and then come up with something else they like better if they don't have the authority to address the issue. And by what means did the Planning Commission have to send it back to ARC to tell them the Planning Commission didn't like what they did when the Planning Commission wasn't supposed to be judging what they've done when ARC is the final arbiter on that matter. Mr. Drell said that Planning Commission requested a change and he agreed that it was confusing and they could debate this another time, but his answer was the same. He noted that the Council did this often. When the Council changes things, if those changes are a significant land use change, they refer it back to the Planning Commission. If there are significant changes to the architecture, they refer it back to the Architectural Commission. Commissioner Jonathan noted that was at their discretion. They weren't mandated to. Mr. Drell said it was because the Council is the ultimate approving authority under the Municipal Code. Under the Municipal Code the Architectural Commission is the approving authority only superseded by the City Council in terms of architecture and landscaping. Commissioner Jonathan said he thought they needed to discuss this at another time. He was learning something new tonight and thought they all needed to truly learn that. He didn't know if they had other options. At times they had sent things on and just made recommendations to Council. So when they run into this again, he thought they needed to understand the process and what their options were. He said he didn't have a problem with what Mr. Drell was recommending, and didn't disagree in terms of the courtesy and benefit of doing that. tow 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 In terms of amending his motion, he would still want to stay with recommending to Council the adoption of an ordinance extending the existing development agreement and he thought that staff concurred with that. He suggested that they take that separately. Chairperson Finerty asked for a second to the minute motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion recommending to City Council adoption of an ordinance extending the existing development agreement. Chairperson Finerty stated that she would be opposed to it only because she had confidence in the City's policy on how they have behaved and had essentially gone through the process for years and years and years and didn't see why they needed to do something different now. She thought it was important for there to be trust in the City and in the way they have done things. Chairperson Finerty called for the vote. The motion carried 4-1 with Chairperson Finerty voting no. With regard to the precise plan, Commissioner Jonathan said what was being recommended was to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval. Mr. Drell said approval of the precise plan after reviewing the actual development agreement document and the response to comments. They would also be including in the resolution a recommendation approving the amendment and extension of the development agreement and certification of the Supplemental EIR. Commissioner Jonathan said that would include approval of the tentative parcel map and everything else. Mr. Drell concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, directing staff to prepare a resolution recommending to City Council approval of a precise plan of design, tentative parcel map, development agreement and Supplemental EIR. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 Chairperson Finerty said she would also be opposed to this because she felt they were putting the cart before the horse. She felt it was their duty to review EIR comments and review the development agreement. They had not seen either. She believed there were still concerns with regard to the grading and the other elevations, with regard to the necessity of the signal, the circulation, the massive parking lot and she thought they needed to, with such a huge project, take their time and she felt as though the commission was being rushed. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they would be addressing those issues at their meeting on the 7th when they see the precise plan and other documents. Mr. Drell said they wouldn't see any changes to the grading. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they would have the opportunity to address those issues at the next meeting. Mr. Drell said yes, they would have the opportunity to address them and in making their recommendation to Council, they could make recommendations that the grading be changed or anything be changed. Commissioner Campbell asked if they would also have the response to the EIR comments at that time. Mr. Drell said yes. He had a i.. feeling that the EIR comments weren't necessarily going to be the commission's main concern relative to the project. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they would be available for them. Mr. Drell concurred. He hoped staff would be able to get them out prior to the normal system. Commissioner Campbell asked if they would also receive the development agreement. Mr. Drell concurred. He said it was pretty simple and hoped they would have more time to review them than they normally did. Commissioner Campbell asked for sure that all of this would be coming back to the commission on January 7. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Tschopp agreed with Chairperson Finerty. He felt it was a little premature. There weren't big concerns, but until they see the revised development agreement and EIR, he didn't know if there was any need to approve a precise plan at this time. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the motion wasn't to approve it, it was to prepare a resolution of approval. Commissioner Campbell said that even if they prepared a resolution of approval, they could still deny it. She confirmed they wouldn't have to accept the resolution. It was just something in black and white. Chairperson Finerty called for the vote. The motion carried 3-2 with Chairperson Finerty and Commissioner Tschopp voting no. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 ti C. Case No. PP 02-19 - STEPHEN R. NIETO/PREMIER FINANCIAL, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to construct a 4,405 square foot professional office building at 44-750 Village Court. Mr. Bagato stated that the vacant site is located on the east side of Village Court, 650 feet north of Highway 1 1 1 . The property is zoned for Office Professional. The floor plan on display was for an office that would provide 3,230 of leasable area. The project would provide 18 parking spaces of which nine would be covered. The building would be single story. He showed the commission elevations and said the building would total 23 feet in height with a combination of Mediterranean and contemporary architecture. All the standards were outlined in the staff report. The project complied with all the zoning ordinance requirements and the design was consistent with other Village Court proposals. On November 26, 2002, the Architectural Commission granted preliminary approval of the project. He stated that the project is a Class 32 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes. Staff recommended approval by adoption of the draft resolution approving PP 02-19, subject to the conditions. He asked for any questions. There were no questions. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the commission to address the commission. MR. STEPHEN NIETO of Southwest Concepts at 78-120 Calle Estado, Suite 206 in La Quinta, addressed the commission. He stated that he was present representing the applicant, Premier Financial. As indicated, he said the project meets all of the development standards. It was a much smaller building and the architectural style was consistent with all the other buildings in the Village Court area. He said he was present to answer any questions. He noted that Premier Financial would occupy half the building and would lease out the other half. He said they were leasing them out as executive office suites and they provided a 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 shade structure on the south side of the building. He said it was a pretty straightforward project. The landscaping was consistent with the arid zone or desert style of architecture that is being used throughout the area. Chairperson Finerty complimented Mr. Nieto. She said it was a very nice project, there was no deviation from the codes or ordinances and it was a real pleasure. Mr. Nieto said he was glad she liked the project. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the plans called for a bull pen and he asked what that was. Mr. Nieto explained that it was the area where the brokers do all of their phone calls. So they stick them all in one area and that was the bull pen. w Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that since it is compatible with all the other buildings on Village Court, she would recommend approval. Commissioner Tschopp said he would second that. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2171 , approving PP 02-19, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. %NW 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 D. Case Nos. C/Z 02-04 and PP 02-14 - VALLI ARCHITECTURE GROUP, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from planned commercial (regional) PC(3) to service industrial (SI) and approval of a precise plan and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an 83,270 square foot self storage facility on a 2.2 acre site on the west side of Painters Path south of Fred Waring Drive, 72-237 Painters Path. Mr. Smith noted that commission might remember discussing this matter in October of 2001 . At that point in time there was a brief presentation made to the commission as a Miscellaneous Item and the question at that moment of time was if we should consider this through the conditional use permit process or if it should come back with a zone change process. He said that copies of the minutes of that meeting was included. Basically at that point in time the commission did not endorse the project. The applicant chose to come back at this point in time and request the zone change from the Planned Commercial regional district PC-3 back to Service Industrial. He indicated that was the zoning prior to 1989. For 13 years the property has remained vacant with its PC-3 zoning. Mr. Smith noted that Painters Path south of Fred Waring Drive is a dead-end street and the property faces the rear / backside of the Office Depot building. Staff included a photograph of the back of the Office Depot building. Staff felt these constraints severely limited the commercial potential and in fact the commercial users on Painters Path north of Fred Waring Drive have typically not been strong businesses. Mr. Smith stated that this application was received back in July of 2002. On August 26 staff received a letter from Greg Gill of Coldwell Banker. A copy of that letter was included with the staff report and it indicated that a local restauranteur had made a strong backup offer on the site. At that point staff contacted the applicant, Mr. Cook, and suggested that he step back at that point in time to allow the restauranteur to proceed if in 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 fact he wished to do so. November 12 a letter was received (also included with the staff report) from Mr. Gill. It indicated that his client decided not to proceed. There was no reason specified. November 25 Mr. Cook advised staff that he was back in escrow on the property. At this point the commission was looking at a change of zone from PC-3 to Service Industrial. They were also looking at a precise plan of design for the self-storage facility which would be consistent with the service industrial zoning if the commission granted it. Mr. Smith explained that there would be three buildings on the site with the center building being two-stories above ground, one story in the ground. For staff's purposes, it was considered two-stories. The building adjacent to the street is single story. It contains the office facility. The building back to the west against the mountain was also one story. The layout, site plan and circulation was basically acceptable. The applicant, his site plan, had to take into account an existing CVWD access easement that runs through the property. He has accommodated that with his plan. The applicant provided seven parking spaces. The code requires six in that the project did not provide for a caretaker's unit on site. If it did, it would need eight spaces under code. The architecture included some tower elements on the two-story building to the center of the site. It was anchored with a couple of 35-foot tower elements and the building along the street, the single story building, was anchored with towers at 27 feet in height. While those towers exceeded the height limit in the zone, at least the 35-foot towers, code provides for these tower elements in that they are less than 10% of the building area. Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project and gave it preliminary approval on August 27, subject to adding some architectural detailing with respect to lanterns and mullions. He said the elevations the commission received in their packets included those revisions. Mr. Smith stated that staff was supporting the requested change of zone from planned commercial to service industrial. Staff recommended approval of the precise plan of design as submitted. For CEQA purposes the matter was evaluated as part of the Ahmanson EIR for a higher land use. The current request is consistent with that certified EIR and no v 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 i further documentation was necessary. He asked for any questions. There were no questions. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. STANLEY PAUL COOK, 930 Camino De Lorena No. 68 in San Diego, addressed the commission. Having listened to the commission intensely the last time he was before them 14 months ago, he said they took everything to heart and decided to move forward in a most judicious manner. They tried to incorporate everything they heard then, as well as address the objections he had heard pointedly in reviewing the transcript from that evening's discussion. He said the commission also received in their packets a letter from the City's Park Department. He addressed the issue where one of the commissioners had said it might be a nice spot for a city park. He had that discussion with the Director of Parks who declined to move forward in any manner to initiate any kind of a proceeding to have that become a park and declined to become involved from that point forward. There was also discussion of this as a potential restaurant site. As Mr. Smith just said, once an applicant came forward he did step aside and halted his process after an extensive amount of time, expense and efforts and that of many of his consultants in his firm to allow that to happen since he knew that was a use that was permitted in the existing PC-3 zoning. That did not come to pass. There was also a letter from the owner's representative, Mr. Manny Seagull, who has been handling the sale of this property now for the last six or seven years for the family trust. It was the same family trust that has owned the property since the early 1970's and was actually party to the agreement where the 16 or 17 acres were split off for Desert Crossing. The other 55 acres went into the preserve. This last remaining 2.2 acres was pulled into the same zoning as the shopping center. At that time he believed the owner thought there was some kind of ancillary use that could be associated with Desert Crossing. 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 In effect what was happening now was that the same ownership who asked for the commission to take it from service industrial at that time was now asking them to put it back after 13 years of not being able to do anything with it as a commercial zone. He said he also did a survey in terms of restaurant sites and did a survey up and down the Highway 1 1 1 corridor from the River all the way to El Paseo. There are roughly 70 restaurants in operation. One that has failed was the Cattleman's Club on Painters Path in the same time frame since last year. There were many more restaurants both on the edge of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage just over the boundary line at Highway 111 . And with the reconfiguration of the mall now that Westfield owns it, there would be some additional restaurants in there. If they took into account on El Paseo, there are well over 100 restaurants in the immediate region within a five minute drive. The objections he heard from Mr. Seagull in pursuing other uses on this site is that, to reiterate what Mr. Smith said, there are problems from the site stemming from itself being kind of awkward because of its configuration. They could see that it is just an odd shape. The easement of CVWD cuts along the back and then along the entire northern boundary. They also met with the landscaping department in Palm Desert and moved their setback further back. They highly landscaped the front. He said the drawings on display didn't do justice to what they have come up with and wanted to show the commission the originals. He pointed out the green belting, the rear of the property and along Painters Path. In addition, with the configuration, they would not be seeing any of the doors. He said there were a couple of other things mentioned last year. There are mountains behind them and what they did was utilize the east from the CVWD as a view corridor from Painters Path. When they are on Painters Path looking to the west through their easement along the side, they had a clear view to the mountains. He said they also kept the smaller buildings in front kind of in scale with the elevations for the mountains behind it. They would not see any of the doors whatsoever that were associated with self storage from either Painters Path or from Fred Waring Drive. So 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 when they are approaching this, he showed them the image they would see. He showed a photo rendering that would show the commission exactly what the building would look like from Fred Waring Drive. He said that Highway 1 1 1 was about 240 feet away to the east, but it showed it before on top of what it looked like now, it was a photograph, and they superimposed their elevation as they would see it down Painters Path. Paying particular attention to what was stressed last year, the architectural details would be critical if in fact this project was to proceed forward as self storage. So that gave the commission an image of what it would look like after it was built. After working for all this time, he thought they had come up with a plan that was in keeping with the neighborhood. Moeller's is a two-story office building that is on the front of their property at Painters Path. He had met with Moeller's several times and they were concerned with the massing facing their nursery toward the mountain to the south. He said they changed all of their elevations so that they weren't facing just a big blank wall or big box. They made it look much more residential in character. As mentioned by Mr. Smith, Mr. Cook said that service industrial was what was in place before the Ahmanson/Desert Crossing plan came about. He wanted the commission to understand one thing. They were only interested in doing this one project. They weren't trying to rezone the property to do anything else. They were fine with a restriction that says they must build this and they have one year to start construction. He said they intend to do that well before that. They have no intent to take the property to service industrial and convert it to any other use within that zone. This is what they do and this is the only thing they do and this was what they intended to do. Having met with staff over and over again; having met with the neighbors, and having listened to everything the commission said, he thought they had come up with a project that would work architecturally speaking. He thought they had done as good a job as they could and they were open to even more suggestions, but he thought pursuant to what they heard at the Architectural 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 Review Committee, which was a unanimous decision in support except for some minor architectural details, they had paid very close attention and was why they were before the commission again. They still thought it was a very viable site and the last thing he would say is that this also provided a service to the community. By having a self-storage facility here, the only one nearby was just over the mountain within Rancho Mirage and it was 99.9% full all the time. It was also set back from Highway 1 1 1 about the same distance. He said they would provide a service to all the residential and small businesses in the area, as well as the retail uses. Along this strip of Highway 1 1 1 there was close to 2,000,000 square feet of retail within a five to ten minute drive of this project. He hoped this would prevent people from having to drive across to the more industrialized areas, maybe up on Cook, Hovley, Washington, etc., where they other self storage units are. This was far enough away that it was outside their trade area. But this might prevent some of the cross town traffic and they thought it was a benefit. He said it was also a very benign use. It was the lowest traffic generator there is of any use commercially oriented. They were before the commission asking for approval. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the height of the building shown on the picture was in the correct proportion to the Moeller's building. Mr. Cook said yes. He said it was exactly as it would appear. It had been done by a group called Focus 360. It was architecturally correct and was not distorted in any way or diminished. That was how it would appear. Commissioner Lopez noted that there was not going to be any attendant living there and asked if there would be someone on duty at all times. He asked how this was managed and what would happen when there were problems, such as with gates. Mr. Cook stated that there were operating hours. Typical operating hours were 6:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. There were now onsite 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 7 managers and their office hours were typically 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. depending on the day of the week. They were on call relative to being the first ones if there was an alarm or any problem on the site. There was a phone number for people to call and the person would be living in the area and local. They also had security they could employ that would also be available by phone call. There was a rotary list of numbers for people to go down. Like any typical retail operation, there would be a hierarchy of who would be responsible. They didn't build them with living quarters any more. Commissioner Lopez asked how many cars could stack out of the driveway for people waiting to get in. Mr. Cook said they set this up so there wasn't any stacking to get into the facility. He pointed out the two-story building and showed the access. He said that all of the parking spaces Mr. Smith mentioned were outside the gates. So if they wanted to pull in and x go to the office, they wouldn't have to go through any gates and there wasn't any stacking up. In terms of cars coming in, they separated the parking by a landscape median for the access into the site. It was a loop. For the area outside the gate, he said it would allow for at least three to four cars. If it was a large truck, at least one large truck and a car. But there wasn't very much traffic on Painters Path. That was one advantage to them. Chairperson Finerty asked how important the 35-foot towers were. Mr. Cook said they were important to them because they thought they gave them an architectural identification. It also broke up the mass of the frontage along Painters Path. They were roughly 80% of a football field away from the signal at Highway 1 1 1 . So they were trying to have something visual. It was not dissimilar to the cupolas at Desert Crossing. They didn't serve any real function except as an architectural element. They were looking for that in terms of again people driving and being able to see. It wasn't critical to the operation of the facility, but it was critical to them for their design and catching someone's eye and being identifiable. I 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 Commissioner Jonathan asked about the cupola. Mr. Cook also referred to it as a dome. He said it was a hip roof on theirs, but at Desert Crossing the ones were rotundas. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the tower feature at Desert Crossing, and he thought it was at the Office Depot building, he asked if Mr. Cook or staff knew what the height of that one was. Mr. Drell thought it was 40 feet to 45 feet. Commissioner Jonathan said that was what he thought because the roof line itself was over 30. Mr. Drell thought it was 30 feet to 35 feet. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. MR. MANNY SEAGULL, 1650 Ridgemore Drive in Palm Springs, addressed the commission. He said it has been his task these past years as a real estate broker to represent the Moss Family Trust in the disposition of this property. Over this period of time he has advertised this property in various ways. The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, world wide over the internet, on their personal web page, MLS Listing Service, loads of letter writing and also the Desert Sun. There had been inquiries, but only a handful of written offers. There were plans for a couple of restaurants, a bowling alley, a skating rink, and even an apartment; however, none of the offers ever made it to escrow. At no time did they ever receive any offers for condominiums or town houses. As reasons for dropping their efforts, interested parties cited the service road for Desert Crossing. There was a 20-foot wide easement in favor of the Coachella Valley Water District running through the parcel and an off the beaten path location. In the end these people felt the property was not conducive or feasible for their projects being located on the service road to the rear of Desert Crossing and the irregular shape of this piece of property. This was the only project that has not only opened escrow, but spent a great deal of time and money in developing a plan, talking to the neighbors, and submitting it to the City. 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 His client felt that the planned development for the self-storage was a good use of the property. This irregular shaped lot was tough to develop. It was not very attractive to the users as it mostly faced the tall block walls from the back end of Desert Crossing. Further, if offered a potential business owner hardly any drive-by traffic or visibility from Fred Waring Drive, the main road a few hundred yards to the east. After owning this property for many years, his client wanted to sell it and also have it be of use to the surrounding community rather than sitting there vacant, with broken bottles, debris, tractor trailers and dirt haulers illegally using this property. They were confident that a self storage facility would fit into this area without any problems. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp said he was convinced that the zone change and the plan presented tonight was the best use of the land. He concurred with staff's comments and recommendations. It is a tough piece of property. Views into the back end of another building was a deterrent to any other type of business going in there. There was no visibility. There was no drive-by traffic. It was going to be a tough spot for retail, a restaurant, banking or any uses of that nature. There were vacant businesses to the north on Painters Path that could afford other opportunities for restaurants in that center and there were quite a few restaurants already there. It would be next to a well-run, well-maintained nursery which was a good, viable business, but it was still a nursery. They typically are in light industrial or agricultural zones and it was going to be tough for a high-end type of business or retail shop to go next to something like that. He was also convinced that he didn't know if amusement parks or bowling alleys would be the best use of the land because of the way it tucks behind the building. It might become more of a public nuisance if it had a lot of traffic and a lot of people using that area behind the other businesses. He was in favor of the project and thought they should move forward on it. ' 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 tow Commissioner Lopez concurred. Reviewing his comments from October of 2001 , previously he did think there were some great uses for that land, but visiting Moeller's over the last year and seeing the businesses along Painters Path, he agreed this was probably the best use for the land. He liked the way the architecture looked with the background and was in favor of it. Commissioner Jonathan also concurred. He thought they did the right thing last time, which was to give an opportunity to see if there was a better use of this particular site. He was persuaded that was not going to happen in the foreseeable future and the market has spoken. The proposed development he thought was done very tastefully and from his perspective would be a good fit for that particular location at this point. He concurred with his fellow commissioners. Commissioner Campbell stated that she also had some reservations about this project. As noted in the minutes, she wanted to have something besides a storage facility. She was thinking that if anything happened to Moeller's, that was going to be a great piece of property to develop as far as homes were concerned. After seeing the project, if it looked like the plans when it was built, even though it stated that they are behind Office Depot, actually when looking south coming from Highway 1 1 1 on Fred Waring, they would actually see the whole area, not just one little area of the parcel. She said she was really undecided about the project, but after seeing the plan, it looked pretty nice. At first she thought that the landscaping and berm should be where the gates would be when drivers enter instead of seeing the two story building, but they would be pretty well camouflaged. Chairperson Finerty stated that she really appreciated the effort the applicant had gone through throughout this project and the diligence that had been shown. She wasn't at all opposed to the use as service industrial, but she did have a concern with the 35-foot towers as a backdrop to the mountains. For that reason she was opposed to the project. She asked for a motion. 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 with Chairperson Finerty voting no. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2172, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 02-04 and PP 02-14, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 with Chairperson Finerty voting no. E. Case Nos. CUP 02-30 and PM 31012 - NOGLE ONUFER ASSOCIATES for LINDQUIST DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit and a three-lot parcel map for three detached, one-story single family residences on a vacant R-3 lot on the east side of Ocotillo Drive approximately 260 feet north of Verba Santa Drive, 46-050 Ocotillo Drive. Mr. Drell recommended combining and opening up both public hearing items E and F since they were both virtually identical. Mr. Smith noted that there was someone who might wish to speak on the second one so they might wish to keep them separate. Mr. Drell said they could identify which item they were speaking on. But the staff reports would be identical. It was up to the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked for the pleasure of the commission. The consensus was to combine the public hearings. F. Case Nos. CUP 02-32 and PM 31013 - NOGLE ONUFER ASSOCIATES for LINDQUIST DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit and a three-lot parcel map for three detached, one-story single family residences on a vacant R-3 lot on the east side of Ocotillo Drive approximately 110 feet south of Tumbleweed Lane, 45-500 Ocotillo Drive. 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 Mr. Smith informed commission that the property in each case was a vacant, R-3 zoned lot on the east side of Ocotillo. In April of 2001 , the commission approved a six-unit single story apartment complex on each of the lots. The applicant had been unable to make the six-unit rental projects pencil out. As a result, at this time he was seeking approval of a three-lot parcel map and then approval to put a single family dwelling on each. The parcel map would create three identical lots on each of the lots. There would be 50 feet of frontage or width and square footages ranging from 6,600 square feet to 6,750 square feet. The dwellings were proposed at 2,400 square feet each, 13 feet in height and single story. The 2,400 square feet included a two-car garage, so they had a net livable space of approximately 2,000 square feet in each home. The units had the same floor plan, but the elevations varied, creating an interesting streetscape. The architecture was reviewed by Architectural Review Commission at its meeting of November 26 and was granted preliminary approval. The project complied with all the R-3 zone provisions except for the perimeter side yards. The project proposed five-foot setbacks in each side yard while the R-3 zone required a total of 20 feet with a minimum of eight. The intent of the R-3 zone when it created the required side yard was to assure adequate separation between relatively large, bulky apartment buildings. This project involved three narrow, low rise single-family homes with ten feet of interior separation. Staff felt the intent of the ordinance was being achieved. The five-foot perimeter setbacks on each of the lots allowed for 40-foot wide homes on the 50-foot lots. This resulted in what they felt were superior front elevations and floor plans. The existing apartment projects to the north and south of each of the lots had been developed with five-foot side yards, so on the perimeter they were achieving the ten-feet of building separation. The R-3 zone allowed them, by approval of this request, to establish the setbacks as shown on the plan and that was what staff was recommending. The findings for the approval of the conditional use permit were outlined on pages three and four of the staff report. The matter was a Class 3 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 l Categorical Exemption for CEQA purposes and no further documentation was necessary. That was on each of the lots. With respect to the northerly project, CUP 02-32, staff received a letter from Mr. Dolan, a property owner to the east. A copy of the letter was distributed to commission. Basically he was expressing support for the project provided that it was limited to the 13 or 14 feet in height and that the six-foot screen wall be a plastered wall. Mr. Dolan spoke with the architect of this project, Mr. Hollosic, and he would be addressing the commission. But it was his understanding that the wall was not an issue with the applicant. They want to be good neighbors. Staff recommended approval of both projects, subject to conditions, and asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan noted that on the exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Smith mentioned that the only exception was the side yard requirement of 20 feet combined, 8 feet minimum, and instead they were proposing 10 feet combined and 5 feet minimum. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the minimum lot area is 20,000 and these were less than 7,000. He asked if that was an exception to the ordinance. Mr. Smith said no. They would be approving the cluster development through the conditional use permit process, and then the map was being overlaid on that or coming in after the fact. An analogy would be a commercial piece of property, such as the Mervyn's center, where they came in later and did a parcel map and there were several parcels in that center. Once they have the overall approval (in this instance residential) then the ownership, whether it was one lot and three apartment units or three single family lots, the ownership was not a land use issue. Commissioner Jonathan said they would end up with 6,700 square foot lots. Mr. Smith said there would be lot lines eventually established. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the zoning table in the staff report indicated minimum lot width of 90 feet, but the project would end up with 50 feet. He asked if that was the same rationale he was describing and wasn't really an exception to the ordinance. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Basically this was how they have always dealt with these lots. The planning unit they are dealing with is how they look at the lot 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 minimums. They have had condominium projects that ultimately get economized, but the fact that they create a condominium doesn't violate total lot property dimension, which is the planning unit. He said they have done condominium maps of commercial buildings, so these things have been the minimum dimension of the planning unit for the project. Once that has been approved, how divisions are done have not been interpreted as exceptions. Commissioner Jonathan asked if part of the reason for the recommendation was because they were looking at it as kind of a single development of a 20,000 square foot lot that contains three living units. Mr. Drell said that was correct. If someone came in and just wanted to parcel the lot without a plan, we'd say no, they couldn't do that because they were dividing the planning unit into lots that were non-conforming. But typically future ownership decisions have not been viewed as exceptions when the whole project as developed was in conformance with the lot minimums. That is how they have done things. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOSEPH HOLLOSIC, representing the client, Lindquist Development, addressed the commission. He stated that he works for Nogle Onufer Architects at 2398 San Diego Avenue in San Diego, California, 92110. He indicated that he just had a couple of brief comments. He was very pleased with the findings of the staff report. He pointed out that condition number eight indicated that the size, number and location of driveways shall be to the specifications of the Department of Public Works with only two driveway approaches serving this property. But further on in each of the reports and the actual verbiage, it indicated that it should be served by three driveways. The plan they prepared showed three driveways. One for each residence. He wanted to correct that and believed it was simply a typo. Secondly, he wanted to say that they worked with staff and Mr. Drell directly and went through quite a number of possibilities and did discuss various other options including zone changes. He concurred with Mr. Drell that this is the appropriate action to take for this property. Again, they had a project with six units on it that they could have condo-ized, but it did not make economic sense. They felt this was actually a superior product for this property because they would have 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 a uniquely different houses and still have 50-foot wide lots, which were fairly nice and would be well suited for that neighborhood. He felt all the issues had been addressed and was available for any questions. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that staff agreed that the two was a typo. Mr. Drell said yes. When reading the actual Public Works letter, it said three. He didn't know how they got two. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell thought they were very well done. She looked at the properties and thought they were in a great location. Mostly there were apartments there except further south by Verba Santa there were single family residences. She liked the architecture. All of them would be a little bit different and would complement everything on that street, so she would move for approval for both. Commissioner Tschopp seconded. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was any other discussion. Commissioner Jonathan stated that initially he had some significant concerns about lot sizes and the separation, but he was persuaded by staff's comments in terms of looking at the project as a whole. He saw where staff was coming from and was in favor. Chairperson Finerty concurred. She thought this was a nice way to do housing for smaller square footage. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2173, approving CUP 02-30 and PM 31012, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. j 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 %WW Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2174, approving CUP 02-32 and PM 31013, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. XI. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. CUP 02-25 - UNITED CHURCH OF THE DESERT, Applicant Per Planning Commission direction on December 3, presentation of a resolution denying a conditional use permit ... for a 3,500 square foot church located at 77-577 Mountain View in the RE 40,000 zone. Chairperson Finerty noted that they have a resolution of denial as requested from the last meeting. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Tschopp voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2175, denying Case No. CUP 02-25. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Tschopp voted no). XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (December 11 , 2002) Chairperson Finerty indicated that they talked about land use and explained that a preferred plan was adopted. From that staff would be conducting traffic studies and doing a traffic model and that would be corning back. They have two more meetings and would hopefully be done. Mr. Drell said that basically they would probably start discussing the Circulation Element before the models were all done to talk about them philosophically. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the process would be once the committee got done with it. Mr. Drell said they would probably do some public dog and pony shows to some of the service groups, Board of Realtors, and then they would be scheduling public hearings before the Planning Commission, hopefully in March. Chairperson Finerty stated that they should probably get the document a month or two in advance. Mr. Drell said that as soon as the document is completed the commission would get a copy. Chairperson Finerty noted that it was huge. Commissioner Campbell asked when the next GPAC meeting would be. Chairperson Finerty said the next two meetings were January 15 and 30, 2003. One is a Wednesday and one a Thursday, both at 4:00 p.m. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (December 17, 2002) Chairperson Finerty stated that they looked at a community garden sign and some landscaping at the interchange at Washington and Monterey, as well as some preliminary landscaping on Monterey that both Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert would share. She said that was actually very nice and looked forward to it. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was going to be another community garden. Chairperson Finerty said no, there would be 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 v landscaping on a median on Monterey. Half was in Rancho Mirage and half in Palm Desert. She said it was quite a task for staff to get Rancho Mirage to go along. She said they did a good job and it was a really nice palette with a lot of color. Commissioner Jonathan noted that he was on the Monterey Corridor Committee and wasn't invited to that meeting. Mr. Drell said he wasn't there either. He noted that it was handled directly by the landscape staff. Chairperson Finerty explained that the community garden item had to do with the signage for the garden on San Pablo. They were going to send it to ARC. With regard to the interchange plan, Chairperson Finerty stated that the County decided to include ram's horns in the concrete pattern and by Washington it was a rabbit. F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) r.. G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XIII. COMMENTS Regarding the photo layout presented by Mr. Cook for the self-storage project, Commissioner Tschopp stated that it was very helpful and asked if staff could get the number of where developers could have that done. Mr. Drell thought it would also be helpful, especially with Wal-Mart and the view of the project from the parking lot. He said their architect had shown him all sorts and had the capability of doing it themselves and showed him examples of photo renderings they had done that he thought looked pretty good. He said there are various firms who have done that. He noted that Mobil did it on Cook Street. A bunch were done for Eddie Babai's house up on the hill. He said it depended on the skill of the computer operator. They still had to almost render it like an artist into the computer. It wasn't as easy as it appeared. Some do it well and some did it cartoonish. 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 Commissioner Jonathan said it sounded like there were some firms that do just that part of it. He agreed with Commissioner Tschopp that particularly with more significant projects, staff should encourage applicants to do them because it was very useful. Commissioner Campbell agreed. She noted that she was undecided about that project until she saw how it was going to look. After no further comments, Chairperson Finerty noted that the next meeting would be January 7, 2003 and asked for a motion to adjourn. XIV. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ATTEST: CINDY FINER Y, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm x 46