Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0603 ����� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ,., . - - . TUESDAY - JUNE 3, 2003 * * * � * * * * ,. * * * * * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * * � * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * # * * * * � * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan, Vice Chairperson Cindy Finerty """ Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Tony Bagato, Planning Tech Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the May 20, 2003 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the May 20, 2003 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 a � V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell and Mr. Smith summarized pertinent May 22, 2003 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 02-21 - J.C. PENNEY PROPERTIES, INC., THE MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY, FEDERATED WESTERN PROPERTIES, INC., AND WEA PALM DESERT LP (WESTFIELD AMERICA, INC.), C/O PALLER-ROBERTS ENGINEERING, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments between Lots 1, 4, 5 and 8 of Tract No. 18942, � Westfield Shoppingtown Palm Desert. ""� Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. 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 Nos. GPA 03-02, C/Z 03-01 and PP 03-05 - JAMES AND LUCILLE FEIRO, ET.AL., Applicants (Continued from April 1 and May 6, 2003) Request for approval of a general plan amendment from residential (medium density 5-7 units per acre) to office # a 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3 2003 `.. professional, a change of zone from R-1 13,000 to O.P. (Office Professional), a precise plan of design for a 3,000 square foot single story office building, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto. The general plan amendment and change of zone apply to three lots on the west side of Deep Canyon Road: 44-605, 44-655 and 44-675 Deep Canyon Road. Precise plan of design applies to property at the northwest corner of Ramona and Deep Canyon Road, known • as 44-605 Deep Canyon Road. Chairperson Campbell stated that the public hearing was �en and that staff was recommending a continuance to a date uncertain. Mr. Drell explained that the applicant was still unsure about how he was going to proceed. By continuing it to a date uncertain, if and when he was prepared to proceed, staff would renotice the public hearing and it would be placed back on the agenda. �.. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by minute motion continuing this matter to a date uncertain. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. C/Z 03-02, PP/CUP 03-03, TPM 31350 and DA 03-01 - JEWISH SENIOR COMMUNITY OF THE DESERT FOUNDATION, Applicant (Continued from May 6, 2003) Request for approval of a change of zone from PR-5 to PR-5 S.O. (Senior Overlay), a precise plan/conditional use permit for a 55-unit two-story senior assisted living housing facility, a tentative parcel map to subdivide the site into two parcels, a development agreement to restrict development and operation of the residential facility and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto for the project located at Temple Sinai, 73-251 Hovley Lane. �" 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 Chairperson Campbell explained that the applicant withdrew their application. Mr. Drell stated that no further action was necessary; the application was withdrawn. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that a few members of the audience might not completely understand the action. Mr. Drell explained that the applicant withdrew the request, so the application disappeared. Someone asked if they could come back. Mr. Drell didn't think this application would be resubmitted and stated that at this time there was no application, but any future proposed projects would go through the same public hearing process. Action: None. C. Case No. CUP 03-04 - BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicant (Continued from April 15 and May 20, 2003) , Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow � Bighorn Development to operate an abandoned public utility well site for private water irrigation located at 47-600 Chia Drive. Mr. Bagato reviewed the history of the case. He explained that Bighorn had been operating the well since 1990. Code Compliance received a complaint on July 27, 2001 from the adjacent neighbor to the north about the pumps making noise approximately 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That's when Code Compliance contacted Bighorn and over a fve-month period began to attempt to mitigate the noise issue by installing new, quieter pumps, some silencing screens and increasing the wall height along Mr. Garbarini's property line to try and resolve the issue. On November 21, 2001, Code Compliance still received information from Mr. Garbarini that the noise from the pumps was still unacceptable. On January 9, 2002, Bighom was issued a court citation for violating the City's nighttime ordinance of 45 dbs between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Then Bighom constructed temporary stn.�ctures with soundproofing material over 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3 2003 ir.. them to get the levels below the 45 db and on February 9, 2003 the Code Compliance Office measured it to at 43 db, in compliance with code. He said unfortunately, the temporary structures were not aesthetically pleasing and Mr. Garbarini appeared in front of the Council and voiced their concerns about the structures and the noise from the past. Based on that, there was a claim filed against the City. The City Manager directed staff to work with Bighorn and the immediate neighbor to solve the problem with a permanent solution and that was when Bighom took the step of hiring their acoustical engineers who went ahead and prepared a report in July of 2002. It proposed three acoustical panel structures. Bighorn chose Alternative No. 3 which they felt was the most superior design. Based on that, the report in August of 2002 indicated that the dbs dropped from the 43 that Code Compliance measured to 30.5 db, which was a significant drop in sound. That was when staff began researching the Zoning Ordinance to see if there were any regulations for these wellsite conversions and there weren't any. Based on that, October 1, 2002 the Planning Commission initiated a zoning `. ordinance amendment to allow the conversion from public utility to private export irrigation systems as a conditional use. January 9, 2003 City Council approved Ordinance No. 1030 al(owing this conversion. Mr. Bagato stated that ordinance specifically included development standards for these wellsite conversions and noises to basically govern the conversion. The development standards in Section 25.56.510 specified that any new improvements had to comply with the applicable zone standards and Architectural Review process. Since the site is zoned R-1 10,000, those were standards that would apply to these new structures. He stated that the code requirements were identified in the staff report in terms of height and setbacks. When the ordinance was processed, the goal of it was to limit the impacts of these sites to those that could be anticipated to occur in its base zone. In an R-1 zone, typical impacts would be a single family home 18 feet in height with accessory structures, poo! and air- conditioning equipment. Mr. Bagato stated that he could go over the requirements for the new improvements. He informed commission that he had a revised site plan that he received that day that unfortunately he wanted to try to get to the �..► 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 commissioners. It indicated where the electrical panel was for setbacks. He met with Mr. Babbington and measured all of them to verify they were accurate measures for setbacks. The new improvements of the well conversion involved the construction of the two soundproof structures, the electrical panel and the shade structure that covered it along with the installation of the landscaping. He reviewed all the setbacks for both pumps. He stated that with a 25% averaging as outlined in the staff report, the structure complied with the R-1 10,000 zone. He noted that the electrical panel and the shade structure didn't meet the minimum side yard setback of eight feet and would have to be moved four feet to comply with the development standards of the zone. He stated that the landscaping was placed inside the actual site in front of Pump No. 1 and Pump No. 2 to help screen it from Mr. Garbarini's property. There was also landscaping installed on the outside of the property to help screen it and enhance it from the front, as well as from the park side as much as they could. � The applicant submitted a landscape maintenance agreement that the City's Landscape Department reviewed and approved. On March 11, 2003 the Architectural Review Commission reviewed and granted preliminary approval of all the improvements. To clarify the issue of the wall height, Mr. Bagato noted there was some discussion on April 15 about the wall. It was mentioned in the report that it was new and Mr. Bagato said that was incorrect. The wall was actually permitted in 1991 and averaged in height from 6'8" to 8 feet. He said that was the way it was constructed per the permit. There were some grade differences and that could be the reason behind it. There were three courses added to the wall adjacent to Mr. Garbarini's property to mitigate the noise. But those courses were removed at the request of Mr. Garbarini after the acoustical structure and landscaping was installed. So the wall was back to its permitted height. In Section 25.56.510, the noise standard specified that the use of these well site conversions should not increase the ambient noise level measured prior to the conversion. May 14, 2003 a second study was done. It was conducted between the hours of 9:30 p.m. and 11:50 p.m. The study showed an 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 �.. ambient noise level of 42 dbs with the pumps on and with the pumps off. The estimated noise levels from the pump measured only 29 dbs, which was lower so there was no increase in ambient noise levels at this site with the structures in place. On April 15, there was discussion about the possibility of undergrounding and lowering this particular site. Staff reviewed with the applicant the possibilities of that and during that process they identified three key issues when dealing with undergrounding. Completely undergrounding the facilities, which would consist of an underground type of vault similar to the one on Haystack Road. Then there was the possibility of partial undergrounding to lower the wells below the grade so that the structures wouldn't be seen above the height of the wall. He stated that they identified a difference between existing wells versus new well heads. The complete undergrounding of this well would require removal of existing structures, the deep wells, the electrical panels and interior landscaping. Dismantling of both well heads, motor bases and the building r„�„ foundations. Re-engineering of the well heads, excavation of the ground and an anticipated 12 feet or more for this site. Installation of the vault floors, hatches and waterproofing, and the reconstruction of the well heads, foundations, engineering, and some removal and retrofitting of existing discharge pipe manifold as indicated in the report submitted by the applicant. Mr. Bagato explained that study indicated that this procedure could take approximately four months and would cost approximately $495,488 and any unforeseen circumstances could increase that cost. To lower the site so that the acoustical structures wouldn't be seen above the walls, a similar process to complete undergrounding would be required because of the removal of the existing well heads. There would be no vault conversions, but the applicant indicated that this construction would cost $436,999. That was a difference of only $58,489. From that study staff found the major construction and cost associated with existing well sites was the removal and then reconstruction of the existing well heads. That brought them to the discussion of undergrounding new wells heads. When looking at a proposed new well being drilled or added above ground, that would only require excavation of the ground to the desired depth v.. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 � needed. Installation of the new well heads would take place anyway and then a vault for complete undergrounding or soundproof structures for partial undergrounding. Based on that information, staff was recommending that the commission, by minute motion, initiate a zoning ordinance amendment that would modify the recently approved Section 25.56.510 to require that new well heads be lowered so that no structures would be above a six-foot high wall. In conclusion, Mr. Bagato said that Section 25.56.510 established development standards based on the existing zoning. Noise from the pumps could not increase ambient noise. The two acoustical structures complied with the R-1 10,000 standards, the electrical panel shade structure had to be moved four feet to comply with that requirement. With mitigation measures in place, the noise level was measured at 29 dbs and ambient noise was not increased. The new landscaping screened the acoustical structure fairly well from the neighbor to the north and the park and generally enhanced the site. � Based on cost, staff felt that undergrounding of existing wells appeared to be � unnecessary and unreasonable since noise and aesthetic issues could be mitigated consistent with the R-1 zone. He also recommended that Planning Commission initiate a zoning ordinance amendment to require new well heads to be lowered to reduce the height of acoustical structures. He recommended adoption of the Planning Commission Resolution approving CUP 03-04, subject to the conditions and by minute motion, and initiate a zoning ordinance amendment to Section 25.56.510 requiring new wells to be undergrounded or lowered below grade so that no equipment was visible above the six-foot high wall. Commissioner Tschopp stated that he would be abstaining from this discussion because he was absent at the April 15, 2003 meeting. Mr. Bagato added that two letters were received and were distributed to the commission. They were in opposition to the project. Commissioner Jonathan complimented Mr. Bagato on the staff report. He said it was especially comprehensive, well organized and informative. With regard to revising the ordinance, he noted that staff didn't address the � 8 „� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 i.. abandonment of well sites and any mechanism for dealing with that potential situation. He asked if staff considered that. Mr. Bagato said it was still an issue because he didn't know what the regulation was on having someone sell their land. It would be Bighorn's property. Commissioner Jonathan explained that he wasn't addressing Bighorn. This matter was kind of bifurcated into the ordinance amendment and Bighorn and he saw them as two separate issues. Just in general with regard to the revised ordinance, he asked if it was appropriate to include and address the potential abandonment of well sites. Mr. Drell said no. What staff concluded was that people could stop pumping wells for all sorts of reasons. Staff's concern would be the continued maintenance of the landscaping and everything else. This was a property that the property owner decided to wall and landscape. What was inside it could be all sorts of things or empty. What the public was seeing was the wall and the landscaping. As long as the landscaping and the Landscape Maintenance Agreement was being implemented, then to compel them to tear the walls down and remove everything he didn't think was reasonable. ,�,,, And whether they should deal with it here or in the landscape maintenance agreement itself and whether they have an abandonment section in case they stopped maintaining it, someone didn't have to live in their house and as long as it was maintained, there wasn't a problem. The problem was when the appearance became a problem. Commissioner Jonathan said he could see that point and it made sense. He asked if it would be appropriate for the ordinance to provide that well sites would be required to enter into a landscape maintenance agreement that would include for any period of non- operation. Mr. Drell said a remedy for failure of maintenance could be removal of all the improvements and restoring the site to a vacant lot. He said staff would work with the City Attorney on that. With regard to the application itself, Commissioner Jonathan asked about the coRugated steel roofing. He thought it was brought up in one of the letters. When the applicant received approval from ARC, Commissioner Jonathan asked if ARC approved corrugated steel roofing. Mr. Bagato said it was mentioned that the panel wasn't sufficient at the ARC meeting and they were going to ask the applicant to look at something a little more detailed. The minutes didn't reflect that because more of the discussion of these structures took place on the other conditional use permit (CUP 03-03)and this was next +�.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 � � in line so they approved it because it had similar improvements. But it was mentioned at the meeting that the covering wasn't seen as aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Drell said that when they relocated, staff's assumption was, and the commission could reinforce it, was that the design of the shade structure should be comparable to what would normally be seen on a single family property. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that the shading structure was not specifically addressed or approved by ARC. Mr. Drell said they looked at the whole site and at a bunch of photographs. He said staff brought up the fact that they thought the design of the shade structure was probably substandard. He thought they were generally pleased overall and they may not have come back to that issue. The shade structure was not something they would necessarily have approved if they were just looking at it. Commissioner Finerty noted that the ARC minutes from March 11 that were attached to Ms. Housken's letter just said that the action was approval of the perimeter wall and landscaping. Mr. Drell said ARC looked at the same site plan and they saw photographs of the installation with the landscaping. In the photographs it was difficult to see the structures. The exhibits that were � shown showed all the improvements. '"� Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the landscaping on the plan that was approved by ARC, he asked if that landscaping had been installed. Mr. Bagato said it had been installed. Chairperson Campbell noted that there was no landscaping on the east side of the wall. Commissioner Jonathan said there was no landscaping on the south side either. Mr. Bagato explained that it wasn't right up against the wall, it was farther away. He said the limit of the work was outside the scope of the property. The trees were installed. Mr. Drell thought it was probably difficult to distinguish the landscaping that was installed from the landscaping in the park. The applicant had confirmed that everything was installed. Commissioner Jonathan thought it was rather bare looking at the bottom of the drawing, which was the south elevation driving north on Chia to view the structure. He thought it looked rather bare. Mr. Drell said that they could request the addition of more trees and was sure the applicant would be willing to do that. It was still desert style landscaping to be compatible with the park. Mr. Bagato noted that the trees were fairly young and they weren't right up against the walt. They were probably about ten feet away. e 3 10 „� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 �.. Regarding the roof structure, Chairperson Campbell asked if that would be moved four feet, the Portola well was covered with tile and a wall structure. She asked if they would be able to do something similar to cover this electrical panet instead of the corrugated steel. She felt the tile would look better. Mr. Bagato said that the commission could express that to the applicant and discuss that option. Mr. Drell stated that he wasn't sure if it was universally agreed that those were all that attractive. He thought that sometimes they just wanted to make something as low as possible and try to make it unobtrusive. Chairperson Campbell stated that they looked better than what was there now. Mr. Drell agreed that what was there now was unacceptable. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was o�en and asked the appficant to address the commission. MR. GREG BABB(NGTON, 6231 Hop Patch Spring Road in Mountain Center addressed the commission. He asked for any questions. �,,, Mr. Drell asked Mr. Babbington to confirm that all the plants shown on the plan had been installed. Mr. Babbington said yes. Mr. Drell believed that the City's landscape inspectors had inspected it. Mr. Babbington confirmed that they had. Commissioner Lopez asked if Mr. Babbington was in agreement with the condition for the electrical panel and shade structure being moved four feet to comply with the R-1 10,000 residential standards. Mr. Babbington said no. He said he might have a way to address both the corrugated roof structure and some additional screening from any or all sides of the site as needed. He came up with a small presentation to try to demonstrate that additionai screening. Mr. Babbington gave a presentation. He showed the existing conditions with the wall, panel and shade structure. He showed the profile of the gradient of the centerline of Chia Street and the line of sight from r`"" 1 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 ; street. Then he showed the picture with the panel and shade structure north of the ten-foot setback line. He said that even if the panel and shade structure were moved due north of the 10-foot setback line, they would still see approximately 10 inches or 9 inches of the panel top and roughly the same amount of the shade structure. Given that the whole process of their installing any of these improvements at risk was an agreement to additional conditions that might be imposed upon them to continue to improve the aesthetics of the site, that was how the landscaping plan came up in the beginning. The next exhibit showed a proposed landscape screen on the southern elevation, or looking north at the site from Chia Drive showing that they could effectively, if not completely, screen the existing panel and shade structure from Ironwood Park, Chia Drive, Somera Drive and, if necessary, add adequate landscaping to screen it from the eastern elevation, or looking west from Ironwood Park. He said there was a walking trail that goes through the park near their site. He also had computer enhanced photographs. He said that with proper placement of the palms and any other additional landscape shrubs, they could see that all the objectionable features of the site including the vertical elements of the buildings, the panel, the shade structure, the looming horizontal line of the masonry wall, even the power pole which was not part of their site could also potentially be partially screened. Commissioner Jonathan asked what happened when the palm trees grew up to be big palm trees. Mr. Babbington said they would be willing to participate in an amendment to the existing landscape maintenance agreement to either maintain or remove and replace as needed at a time when they might become objectionable. He said their experience with palms was they didn't completely trim them. They let the skirts come down and that bulb of skirt provided additional lower screening on the trunk. But they trimmed them to a degree where they didn't promote vermin or other things that might try to live in that skirt. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 i..► Commissioner Jonathan asked if he was proposing as a method to screen the view, using landscaping and moving the electrical panel to ten feet from perimeter wall. Mr. Babbington said that was incorrect. What they were proposing was leaving the panel in place and removing the shade structure entirely and replacing the shade structure with a more desirable type of system. A flat roof with a fascia treatment that was painted the same as the perimeter wall and/or the structures on the interior to give it a more residential feel. The cost to remove and replace the panel itself exceeded $30,000, so that was why he was bringing this proposal to the commission. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the proposal was landscaping and changing out the shading structure. Mr. Babbington said that was correct. �,,, Commissioner Jonathan indicated he didn't have a specific landscape plan nor a specific rendering for the replacement of the shade structure at this time. Mr. Babbington said he didn't have a rendering for the shade structure, but he did bring with him a proposed landscaping drawing that showed the location of the palms and other landscape elements he was referring to. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff had been presented with that proposed plan. Mr. Babbington said no, he just received it himself. He asked if the commission wanted to see it. Commissioner Jonathan said he personally wouldn't have sufficient time to study it. He wanted to understand exactly what Mr. Babbington was proposing and then possibly give staff a chance to review it and go from there. Mr. Drell said that during the process they used to screen the structures, Bighorn was quite cooperative. Basically they brought a bunch of `"" 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 plants onsite and a crane and they all went out there and in essence they had holes dug all over the place and they put them in and moved them and when the screening was accomplished, that was when they were done. In terms of screening immediately, it wasn't just the plant on the ground, it was the type of plant they could find in a nursery and how it looked. Although there was a plan, the commitment and direction was the plan wasn't done until the screening was done. Commissioner Finerty noted that what Mr. Babbington showed them was an addition of eight palm trees. She asked what the heights would be. Mr. Babbington proposed varying heights of palm trees to most accurately and effectively screen the most offensive elements. So they didn't have a set height in mind. They sought the guidance of the commission, the Planning Department and the Landscape Department if necessary to see that they use the appropriate heights. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Babbington agreed that the site could look better landscaping wise if more plants were added instead of just palm trees. � There was an awful lot of vacant area. Mr. Babbington agreed. He said they were willing to add additional shrubbery if necessary. His digital photograph attempted to show some bougainvillaea at the base of the wall. Commissioner Finerty stated that she liked Mr. Babbington's idea to change out the shade structure, but without any plan or seeing the type of material and the effect it might have, she was wondering if Mr. Babbington was willing to go back through the process, go back to ARC with the proposed shading structure and seek Mr. KnighYs advice with regard to the varying height of the palm trees and additional plants and where they should be placed. Mr. Babbington said he would be willing to do both. Commissioner Lopez noted that the applicant was willing to work with them and asked if this would be continued again. Mr. Drell said that they could approve the project with those two conditions added as described by Commissioner Finerty with the understanding that if they wanted them to 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 � come back when they were done, maybe as a miscellaneous item, to confirm that was their understanding of their intention, but it was up to them. Commissioner Lopez asked if they could leave it in the hands of the Architectural Committee. Mr. Drell said yes. The question was if they wanted to see it again. Commissioner Finerty noted that they could leave it in their hands, but was concerned about what was previously approved. Chairperson Campbell agreed. They approved the corrugated roofing. Commissioner Finerty also felt there was insufficient landscaping. She was not inclined to do that. Chairperson Campbell agreed. Chairperson Campbell stated that she would like Mr. Babbington to take the proposal to ARC and then come back to Planning Commission. Mr. Babbington asked if he would have a chance to follow up on some of the commission's concerns about other issues related to the other south end of the park. Mr. Drell thought it was more of a code enforcement issue. He could just �,., inform them that he corrected those maintenance problems. Mr. Babbington said they have been corrected. He had photographs to show it. The fans were removed. All 360 degrees of the site, the landscape issues had been corrected. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Babbington was referring to the other wellsite. Mr. Drell said yes, he was referring to the other wellsite just for general information. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would rather not have that discussion because he was within the radius that woufd cause him to abstain on that other site and it was not related to this application. After no further comments, Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was none and the public hearing was left o�en and she asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan said he was impressed by the applicant's attempt to remedy the ill effects of the pumping station. He thought they were looking at dealing with a revised ordinance to insure that these problems didn't occur, but he thought they needed to do that prospectively since this was an �`"' 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 .� � existing situation. So he thought they needed to separate the revised ordinance issue from the application. With regard to ordinance, he agreed with staff's analysis and with the recommendation with one exception. He thought they should add, and in some way address, the abandonment of well sites. He liked Mr. Drell's suggestion and felt it really hit the issue, which was the maintenance of the landscaping and the appearance of the site itself. He was willing to endorse staff's recommendation with regard to the revision of the ordinance with the addition of the appropriate wording that would address the continuing maintenance obligation of the owner of the site. On the application itself, Commissioner Jonathan thought they needed to continue the matter. He liked the direction in which the applicant was going. He thought that it was not necessary, although it would have been ideal to have a situation where the equipment was undergrounded or at least not visible. That wasn't going to be the reality of this application and he would not force that upon this particular application. In place of that, he liked the � direction the applicant was going in terms of screening the equipment and � structures from view as much as was practical because they didn't want to create a rain forest in a dese�t landscaped park, so they had to find a good balance. If the applicant was willing to experiment on site as Mr. Drell suggested, that might be a very effective approach because they didn't really know the impact until they saw it. If the applicant was willing to do that, then he thought they could get creative on their end and schedule a special meeting out on site or let them look at the end result after the applicant worked with staff, view it, and then make a final decision. That would apply to the replacement of the shading structure as well. He said they might not get an opportunity to see that because he might not want to construct it, but he thought they had to have a better idea of what it would be beyond what they heard tonight. Whether there was a specific detailed rendering or computer generated plans, he would like to see that. He personally didn't see a need to go back to ARC. They had invested enough time and effort and now understood this completely and he didn't think they needed to have ARC go through another learning curve. He said he was okay resolving the matter here, with having the applicant dealing with staff, relandscaping, and then seeing the proposed change out in the shading structure. i 16 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3 2003 i... Commissioner Finerty thought it should go back to ARC because they were adding something different, the shade structure. She thought they might provide them direction of what it was they would ultimately like to see. She said she relied heavily on Mr. Knight with regard to the type of palms, the height, the location, as well as other plants that would be best suited for that area. She would not try to replace his knowledge in any way, shape or form. Once they saw detailed renderings of the shade structure and some computer generated landscaping design, she thought it could come back to them if ARC and Mr. Knight endorsed it. She said she didn't mind going out on site, but she didn't want to go out after all the work was done. She knew it involved the irrigation, etc., so she would rather see it on a picture first and go from there. Commissioner Lopez commended the applicant for his cooperation and intent to mitigate all the concerns that exist, not only the commission's but the residents in the area. He pointed out they were looking at two different things. The ordinance and the recommendation by staff. He concurred with Commissioner Jonathan that there needed to be additional language in the �„ ordinance to address abandoned well sites. He agreed the language should address the continuing maintenance of landscaping, but he would also like to incorporate what was inside those walls because over time people throw things over the walls and stuff ended up in those locations and he thought they should incorporate language that the owner of the property needed to maintain that location in an adequate and acceptable way for the future of the residential area it was in. In this case it was an R-1 area, but should apply to any area it might be in. Regarding the application itself, he thought the commission could resolve it and didn't see the need for it to go back to ARC, but if that was the wish of the commission, he didn't have a problem with that. Additional info�mation they could receive through either photographs or going out to the location and reviewing what would be changed would be beneficial. If they were looking at R-1 requirements, corrugated roofs weren't allowed on residential homes. But the applicant indicated they would change it and provide additional landscaping. When he looked at everything that was being suggested and added to that area, half a dozen additional palm trees would look different from the rest of the park and they wanted to have it look cornpatible with the park. Overall he didn't have a problem with a �" 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 ' continuance and staff should continue to work with the applicant to address the concerns. He thought they were definitely going in the right direction. Chairperson Campbell said she was happy to see the additional palm trees. She also liked the bougainvillaea, but she thought they needed a different type of screening between palm trees. As fa� as the shade structure, she would rather have it go back to ARC unless they had a better picture or fabrication of what the actual structure would be like. If they could see it ahead of time, then it might not need to go back to ARC for their approval. Mr. Babbington said if they were going to review the landscaping with the consideration of the landscape department possibly out in the field, he would be more than happy to provide a mock-up of the type of fascia that they would propose if that would be acceptable as an alternate to detailed renderings. Chairperson Campbell thought that would be better. They would be able to see it before them. She asked about the screening structure. Mr. Babbington said he could provide both. He was willing to provide � a mock up in the field painted the color of the existing conditions as well as renderings if the commission saw the need. Chairperson Campbell asked for some clarification on procedure from Mr. Drell. Mr. Drell believed that Bighorn would ratherjust do the work and spend the money doing the work and continue to do it until it was satisfactory as opposed to doing more artwork. Commissioner Jonathan agreed. He thought in terms of process the application had gone before ARC, ARC gave its blessing, the Planning Commission reviewed it and found some deficiencies, so he thought it was up to them to look at the curing of those deficiencies rather than to send it back. The applicant had expressed a willingness to basically create something onsite that they could look at that would tell them what they have in mind and give the commission a very clear understanding of that in terms of landscaping and the shade structure. Given that, he would make a motion to continue the matter to let the applicant have an opportunity to do what they suggested, which was essentially a mock up of the revised shade ' 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3 2003 �.. structure and either an actual planting of the landscaping material or a detailed rendering. Something that they use to truly understand what it is the applicant is proposing to mitigate the issues they had been addressing. When the applicant was ready, and they could discuss when that might be, then they would meet again and review that and hopefully they would be in a position to make a decision at that time. He asked if the applicant had a date certain in mind. Mr. Babbington believed he could accomplish the tasks in 20 to 30 days. Commissioner Jonathan proposed a continuance to the first meeting July, July 1. He asked if there should be a separate motion on the ordinance. Mr. Drell said yes. That was a minute motion. He added that basically all this work was in the park, so Mr. Knight would review it. They would review the plan and the irrigation before he started planting it. Commissioner Jonathan agreed that the applicant should work with staff. �„�, With regard to the ordinance, Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would also move to approve staff's recommendation for the revision of the ordinance with the addition as expressed by Commissioner Lopez that the ordinance require continued maintenance of landscaping on the entire site, whether the well site was in operation or not. Commissioner Lopez said he would second that motion. Mr. Smith suggested the meeting of July 15. There was a lot of work to be done and this would be the only item on the agenda. So if it wasn't ready, they would have to meet to say it wasn't ready and continue it. Commissioner Jonathan amended the motion. It was seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Action: It was moved Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, continuing Case No. CUP 03-04 to July 15, 2003 and by minute motion directing staff to initiate a zoning ordinance amendment to Section 25.56.510 requiring new wells to be undergrounded or lowered below grade so that no equipment was visible above a six-foot wall and also requiring the continued r`"' 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 � maintenance of landscaping on the site, whether or not the well was in operation. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained). D. Case No. CUP 03-03 - BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicant (Continued from April 15 and May 20, 2003) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow Bighorn Development to operate an abandoned public utility well site for private water irrigation located at 73-375 Shadow Mountain Drive. Mr. Bagato stated that based on the current development standards for the well sites and going by the recommendation of the current code, this property was zoned R-3 and staff was recommending that those standards be applied to the acoustical structure and other improvements. He noted that the acoustical structure for the existing well pump was nine feet tall and was setback 111 feet from the front property line, ten feet from the south, ten feet from the west side yard property line, and 71 feet from the east side property � line. He stated that this structure complied with the R-3 standards. He explained that there was also additional landscaping placed inside the property to help screen it from the adjacent neighbors and along Shadow Mountain to help enhance the property in the front. This project had a newly constructed wall. When Bighorn purchased the site, there was an existing four-foot high masonry wall right behind the sidewalk. That wall was demolished and a new six-foot high slump block wall was built 15 feet behind the curb which complied with the requirement for new block walls. On March 11, 2003,Architectural Review granted preliminary approval of the improvements. Regarding noise, a study was conducted on May 14. The study indicated the ambient noise level measured at 50 dbs with the pumps on and off at this location. The sound study estimated the noise levels from this pump with the acoustical structure in place was 37 db and being lower than the ambient, didn't increase the ambient noise level. Staff recommended approval of the project, subject to conditions. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3 2003 � Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GREG BABBINGTON addressed the commission. He stated that he was present to answer any questions. There were none. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2203 approving CUP 03-03, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp �., abstained). E. Case No. CUP 03-08 - ROBERT GREENWALD, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a massage room within the existing styling salon at 74-040 EI Paseo. Mr. Smith explained that this was a request for a conditional use permit to operate a one massage room facility within an existing styling salon on the north side of EI Paseo. He said the gentleman operated a 4,500 square foot styling salon. He was proposing one room, a 132-foot facility. Regarding parking, he said that early May wasn't a good time to do parlcing counts, but he talked with a business operator in another part of the building who confirmed there was always available parking. He stated that the project was appropriately zoned and that the findings could be supported for the approval. Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions. `�"' 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 Chairperson Campbell ciarified that the applicant already had a business license and a separate massage permit. Mr. Smith said he didn't know if that was the case. Mr. Drell said they would have to do the licensing pa�t before they could proceed and the applicant could answer that question. Chairperson Campbell o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT GREENWALD,44-300 Grand Canyon Lane addressed the commission. He said that all the paperwork was done for the licensing and it was ready to go and then he was referred over to process a conditional use permit and he filled out those applications and that was ready to go. Commissioner Lopez asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Greenwald said it was usually 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. six days a week. They were closed on Sundays. He confirmed that the operation of the massage facility would be the same hours as the business. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this application. There being none, Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2204 approving CUP 03-08, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. F. Case No. TT 31020 - R. DOMINIC CAURRO, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and tentative tract map to subdivide t 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 � 5.05 acres into 16 single family lots located on the west side of Shepherd Lane. Mr. Bagato outlined the salient points of the staff report. He explained that Shepherd Lane would serve as the main access to this site. The project would be required to install half of the street improvements on the west side of Shepherd. The east side of Shepherd would be completed when that project moved forward. He stated that the lots would be sold as custom lots. There wasn't a tract app(ication, but any proposed homes would conform to the R-1 8,000 standards as identified in the report. Mr. Bagato said that the tract map met all the requirements of the Planned Residential zone and physical improvements required for both the Palm Dese�t Subdivision Ordinance and the Califomia State Map Act. The proposed density was 3.1 dwelling units per acre which was below the five per acre zone. The findings for approval of the map were identified in the staff report. For the purposes of CEQA, the project would not have an adverse impact on the environment. Staff recommended approval, subject to the conditions. �,,, Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOHN HACKER, the projecYs civil engineer, 68-487 Highway 111, Suite 44 in Cathedral City, addressed the commission. He stated that he was present to answer any questions. There being none, Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There being none, Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. !t was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2205 approving TT 31020 and Negative Declaration as it pertains thereto, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. �"" 2 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 G. Case No. ZOA 03-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of amendment to the Municipal Code Section 25.58.310 as it relates to parking requirements for churches and other places of assembly. Chairperson Campbell noted that staff was recommending that the matter be tabled and asked for a staff report. Mr. Drell asked if the commission wanted to just ask questions and comment on the report. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in the report staff was indicating, focusing on Sacred Heart as an example of a church with seating for 1,000 persons, that the requirement was for 333 spaces under the current code. They were regularly getting almost 600 cars. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the requirement was 300+, they were getting almost 600, yet staff was recommending no change. Mr. Drell explained that all of the parking requirements were average requirements for the average use. Sacred Heart was kind of exceptional in that there were probably only a few ' Catholic churches in the valley. It was like trying to make every restaurant � park like it was a very busy Ruth's Chris Restaurant. Their evaluation was what the worst thing was that could happen if this exceptional circurnstance occurs. The question was whether to make every single church operate as if it would be like Sacred Heart. Then they looked at the result. People parking on the street on Sunday morning. Was that a horrible thing? Was it worth making all churches double the amount of asphalt they have in their paricing lot? Staff's conclusion was, given the fact that they design streets for people to park on and it only occurs for four hours, probably only during the season on Sunday, the remedy for Sacred Heart of adding another acre and a half of asphalt to satisfy that four-hour problem once a week staff didn't feel was justified given the severity of the situation. He didn't object to having people park on a public street designed for public parking unless it started depriving the local resident of a place to park, then it was a problem. On Sunday moming, the local residents were probably already parked and had their spaces if they needed them. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they did hear testimony from area residents about the parking overflow on Sunday mornings. How bad it was was probably a matter of their perspective and if they lived across the street. ' 24 MlNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3 2003 � Commissioner Jonathan said he could see staff's point. If a new applicant came in with a new 1,000 person sanctuary, then they had the ability to evaluate that situation individually. Mr. Drell thought maybe that was the amendment they should do. Commissioner Finerty indicated they could keep it site specific. Mr. Drell agreed they could place that in the ordinance that it would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis where they would design their sanctuary and staff would analyze them as a place of assembly, not as a religion. Commissioner Jonathan agreed it was the project demand and usage. Mr. Drell thought they should have that standard, but the standard could be modified. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would be more comfortable with something like that then simply ignoring the matter. It just seemed to go against the grain to recognize that a 1,000-person sanctuary does have an issue. If code requires 300 and they were using 600, he didn't want to create another such situation. He would at least like the ability to deal with it. Mr. Drell said that staff could come back with language. �..� Commissioner Finerty asked how they dealt with the point that staff made in the report about Hope Lutheran where they have plenty of onsite parking, but people still preferred to park on the street. Commissioner Jonathan said that when Southwest Community Church was on Hovley, they dealt with it by requiring a parking management plan and they had volunteers out on Hovley directing traffic and had cones, etc. Commissioner Finerty said they could keep it more site specific, like if they had a problem with Sacred Heart. She recalled that there were only about two people that gave public testimony, so it was nothing like what they dealt with at Southwest. Mr. Drell thought that Southwest had 5,000 people showing up on Sundays. With Hope Lutheran, the way they designed their facility and their parking lot, they probably had 100 street spaces on their side of the street adjacent to their parking lot. He thought staff should come back with some careful language that didn't get them in trouble with the Freedom of Religion Act which allowed the Planning Commission to use the standard as a guide and the ability to adjust those standards for a particular circumstance. He said it also had to do with the nature of the neighborhood around it. With Hope Lutheran, that street parking didn't impact anyone. In other neighborhoods it could be more significant if it was a problem. """ 2 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 ; � a � Commissioner Jonathan said he liked staff's discussion of alternative resolutions other than creating more cement or concrete such as a parking management plan for special occasions and holidays with an alternative site parking lot or something like that. As long as they had the ability to make it clear that they recognize potential problems and were open to creative management of those potential problems, then he was okay with it. Mr. Drell said that staff would take another shot at it at the next meeting. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff wanted to continue it to July 15. Mr. Smith noted that this was a public hearing and that there were people present to speak. Regarding Sacred Heart, Chairperson Campbell believed that most people parking on the street were on Deep Canyon, not on the side streets. She said she also noticed about five cars parked on Florine, but they were mostly on Deep Canyon. They would rather park there because it was easier to get out. ; 3 Commissioner Tschopp asked when staff was doing the parking study for � these churches if they looked at or ascertained how full the sanctuary was. He said they weren't so much dealing with the problem as it exists today, although they had a couple of churches that were a problem, they were looking down the road. Churches would fill up depending on how popular or what the ability was of the minister, priest, preacher, so they could have these problems in the future. When they looked at them and said they didn't have a problem now, they should keep in mind that ministers would change and so then could the number of people in the sanctuary which would then have an negative impact with parking on the streets. Mr. Drell noted that Ruth's Chris could get a lousy chef, etc. That is why by their nature all the parking requirements were averages. They didn't assume the most successful or a failure. What was the worst thing that would happen if there was a great restaurant or church? The good news is that there is a great restaurant or church and as long as the ramifications of that weren't disastrous for the surrounding area or a significant inconvenience, that's when they would evaluate on a case-by-case basis. What would be the potential harm if they had the best case such as a successful church? They adjust the parking accordingly based on each individual situation. He said they didn't count the number of parishioners inside the sanctuary. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 �.. Commissioner Tschopp said he didn't have a problem with the intent with the direction staff was taking, he was just stating that they were looking down the road at potential problems so if they were talking about parking, they should be looking at how full the sanctuary was and how much more it could hold, which would be relevant to the number of cars parked on the street and more residents would be impacted. Because churches were a little bit different in that they do sit in residential neighborhoods, that did have a direct impact on residential quality of life. But he thought that if they were looking at anything that had a reoccurring event (places of assembly) that would impact neighborhoods, there should be something in the code that allowed them to work with the individual to address it. Mr. Drell said that is what they would try to come up with. Some language and criteria for those kinds of special considerations to occur which were generic in their application. Chairperson Campbell said that it was also seasonal. Right now there weren't that many people at these churches, yet there were still people parking on the street. So for six months out of the year was when they had a problem. Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public hearing and asked for testimony �, in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. PHILIP SMITH, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church, 80-703 Avenue 49 in Indio, addressed the commission. He said they could support the direction the commission seemed to be taking. A good example of what the commission was talking about was what they were required to do in connection to their current expansion. They were conditioned in the approvals to do a parking study and generate a parking management plan, which they did. He thought the City would have continuing jurisdiction to see that it worked. When they opened their new facility later this year, he thought that would be a good example to see how they were doing. He thought the site specific approach made a lot of sense and said they would be happy to work with staff and looked forward to seeing the draft ordinance. MR. DOUG GERARD, Pastor of the Palm Desert Presbyterian Church, 77-664 Carla Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said they had been using a management parking service to help them through the season. For them that seasonal r"" 2 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3. 2003 { � � � period was about five to six months. He thought that what he read in terms of the current ordinance, one space for three seats, their average attendance during the season was about 1,200 people over three services. During the summer, the attendance was down to about 700. So it was definitely a seasonal problem. There was a residential community to the north where a lot of their folks had been parking, especially during the construction period. They had been having the shuttle service to assist those folks to get to the sanctuary. He agreed it was a site specific issue. One question he had was just because the congregation or sanctuary only seated 200 or 300 people, that didn't mean they didn't have a parking problem. In fact, the parking problem might be more significant for a smaller congregation or smaller sanctuary. He thanked the commission for their time. Commissioner Jonathan thought that was a good and salient point as they head toward a site specific solution. He thought maybe they shouldn't limit it to the larger sanctuaries, but make it available to all places of gathering. ; ; Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing �en and asked for a motion '� of continuance. Staff suggested a continuance to August 5, 2003. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing Case No. ZOA 03-01 to August 5, 2003 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. REQUEST FOR STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT OF PROPERTY ALONG FAIRHAVEN DRIVE AND A PORTION OF SIERRA VISTA DRIVE GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN DRIVE AND SIERRA VISTA DRIVE WITHIN THE PALM VISTA UNIT NO. 2. Mr. Drell clarified that it was the parkway going from 20 feet to six feet. He noted that there was a diagram that was distributed. With that clarification 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 :� and because it would make it consistent with the other properties, staff was recommending that the commission make the finding that it is consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Jonathan said he had no objection, but asked what the purpose of the request was. Mr. Diercks said it was giving land back to the owner. Then the City would not be responsible for it any longer. Mr. Drell said that when the City gets right-of-way for public purposes and when there was no public purpose for it, then it was given back. Mr. Diercks said that at one time it was supposed to be part of a roadway and was no longer needed. Commissioner Lopez thanked Commissione� Jonathan for asking that question. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbefl, determining by minute motion that the subject street right-of-way abandonment is in conformity with the City's General Plan. Motion carried 5- 0. �.. B. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE CHANGE TO PLANNING COMMISSION TIME OF MEETINGS The commission discussed this extensively and several different start tirnes were considered, including 4:00 p.m., 5:00 p.m., 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. The commission also discussed directing staff to not schedule too many public hearings. It was also suggested that the meetings start at 5:00 p.m. and break at 7:00 p.m. If they weren't finished, they could break for 20 minutes and have a snack, then resume. This could be done on a trial basis. That would relieve them of the late night meetings and should enable most families, most peop(e, to be there for the meetings without missing work or interrupting the evening family life. They could give it a try for a few months and see how it works and how they felt about it. Staff noted that the first meeting staff could schedule with a new time would be August because of , the continued public hearings to July 15. The commission was looking for a compromise that would avoid the late meetings and yet be workable. It was suggested that commission direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption at the next meeting and staff would leave the time blank. The commission `"" 2 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 � 1 � could think about it a little more and then fill in the blanks. Staff would produce it for the next meeting. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, by minute motion, directing staff to prepare a resolution to start the meetings ea�lier and the specific time would be finalized at the next meeting. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson Campbell voted no). X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (May 21, 2003) Chairperson Campbell noted that she was unable to attend the meeting. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) a C. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) � D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS 1. Commissioner Jonathan informed the commission and staff that he would not be in attendance at the next meeting. He was going to be out of the country. 2. Mr. Smith stated that there would not be a meeting on July 1, 2003. 3. Chairperson Campbell asked about Project Area 4 and who took care of the landscaping on the south side of 42nd. Commissioner Finerty said that the south side was taken care of by the City and they had people out working this past week. She thought they might eventually allow the landscaping to cover the block wall between Oasis and Warner. Chairperson Campbell indicated she was talking about the � � 30 ,� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2003 ti... landscaping covering parts of the sidewalk befinreen Warner and Washington. Commissioner Finerty hadn't seen any work in that area and thought it didn't get the attention it should and confirmed that it was the City's responsibility. She suggested reporting it to Spencer Knight. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. � PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: �... , ' ,� ��'`'-"� ONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm �... 31