Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1221 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - DECEMBER 21 , 2004 l"" 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the December 7, 2004 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the December 7, 2004 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION a.. Mr. Drell summarized pertinent December 9, 2004 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 2004 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case Nos. PP 00-11, VAR 00-06 AND PM 29888 - RICK MARTIN, SPRINGBOARD FINANCIAL, Applicant Request for approval of a third one-year time extension for a precise plan, variance and parcel map for a 64,521 square foot two-story professional office complex located on the north side of Fred Waring Drive, 330 feet west of Fairhaven Drive at 72-600 Fred Waring Drive. B. Case Nos. PP/CUP 03-16 AND VAR 03-03 - JIM McINTOSH, Applicant Request for approval of a first one-year time extension for a precise plan/conditional use permit for a 6,192 square foot two-story office building at 44-650 Monterey Avenue. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5- 0. Vill. 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 04-19 - NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, Applicant Request for approval of a 64-foot high monopalm wireless telecommunications tower with related equipment building at Oasis Country Club maintenance yard located south of Hovley Lane East and northwest of Sand Dune Drive. ri 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21 , 2004 tr Mr. Urbina outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval of the draft resolution, subject to the conditions of approval. Chairperson Jonathan asked for and received confirmation that all antennae would be kept within the trunk. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MS. BARBARA SAITO, representing Nextel Communications, 310 Commerce in Irvine, California, addressed the Commission. She thanked Mr. Urbina and Mr. Drell for helping her bring this project before the Commission. She stated that she read the conditions of approval, thought they were well done, and they were acceptable. She asked if there were any questions about the project. There were no questions and Chairperson Jonathan 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 Jonathan asked for Commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2316, approving Case No. CUP 04-19, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. C/Z 04-05 AND PP 04-31 - BOB AND MARILYN FORD, Applicants Request for a recommendation to City Council of approval of a change of zone from R-1 to Office Professional (O.P.) and a precise plan of design to allow the construction of a 1 ,826 square foot general office building located at 44-447 Portola Avenue. Mr. Bagato reviewed the main points of the staff report, indicating that Mr. Ford and his wife would be the only two employees working out of this location. He emphasized that the setbacks would be 15 feet to 18 feet from •W 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21 , 2004 the possible future property line in the front, which was 27 feet to 30 feet from the possible future curb. The building was setback 51 feet 9 inches from the rear, 6.5 feet from the north property line, and 16 feet from the south side. Mr. Bagato believed that the project and proposed change of zone provided a residentially-scaled office building that met the goals of the General Plan for Portola Avenue in this area. The use and location would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He said he spoke to a couple of neighbors during the week and a letter was received from Paul and Barbara Bowie, which was distributed to Commission. Mr. Bowie requested a condition that a block wall be constructed prior to any work on the property, including demolition. Both staff and the applicant agreed that was reasonable and Community Development Condition No. 10 was so modified. Mr. Bowie's second concern related to lighting. The current site plan showed approximately six 30-inch tall bollards on the back of the building. There was no other lighting shown. A condition of approval required detailed lighting plans be submitted x for review and approval. He noted that the current ordinance was very strict on limiting any light pollution on adjacent properties and felt that should satisfy that concern. Mr. Bagato said that the other neighbor he spoke with was Mr. Thomas Angle, who was opposed to any commercial use being adjacent to his property. Mr. Bagato recommended approval and asked for any questions. There were no questions for staff and Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. BOB FORD, 48-770 Shady View Drive in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He thanked Mr. Bagato for all his work and appreciated the cooperation he received. He said they were very happy with the progress they had made. They had worked hard to make it a favorable project for everyone involved and were looking forward to moving forward. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Ford read the conditions of approval, understood them, and had no issues with them. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21 , 2004 Mr. Ford said he read them and had no issues. Chairperson Jonathan noted that he had a Request to Speak Card from Mr. Thomas Angle and invited him to address the Commission. MR. THOMAS GEORGE ANGLE, 44-454 San Jose Street, addressed the Commission. Referring to the map on display, he stated that he owns the half acre behind that property. That property line was 12 feet from his back bedroom, the master bedroom, where he lives. It was his feeling that if they allowed this change of zone, and that was going to be a parking lot behind the building, with who knows what going to be in there--motorcycles, trucks, and whatever, and they would probably be running between 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m., common for a building of this type. He stated that the Commission might be exposed legally to a change of value to his property. It could go up to $200,000. He wanted them to consider that. He asked if they had any questions. (There were no questions.) He said they were invited to come over to his property before voting on this to take a look at the back and see how raw it related to the property line. Chairperson Jonathan thanked him for his comments and asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Lopez commended Mr. Ford and the architect on the design of the building. He thought it was excellent and looked very much like a residence. He thought they did a great job. The setbacks from behind this location were significant enough to overcome any type of problems and in fact would probably be a better situation than having a home that backed right up to the property line. He said the project design took into consideration the widening of Portola and he was in favor of the project. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. He thought it was a very nice design for Portola Avenue and would provide a nice transition from a busy street to the residential use behind it. He thought the current commercial ordinances would protect and serve the other neighbors in keeping the noise down. He was also in favor. aWw 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 2004 Commissioner Campbell concurred. She thought it would be a good buffer for the residential. It worked very well on Monterey with the office professional there and the residences in the back. She was in favor. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Chairperson Jonathan also concurred and noted that the structure was 51 feet from the six-foot high block wall and that was in addition to the yard space. So there was tremendous distance between the two structures. He thought this design was exemplary and probably epitomized what they had in mind when they said residential character. Also, the resulting use would be a quiet office use and would probably be less intrusive in many neighborhoods than an active household. So in his opinion this was the kind of transition that he had in mind in going from a very busy arterial roadway such as Portola to the adjacent residential neighborhood. He thought this was just perfect and asked for a motion of approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved b Commissioner Lopez seconded b Commissioner Y P - Y Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2317, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. C/Z 04-05 and PP 04- 31 , subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. TT 33018 - LAURI KIBBY/PELE DEVELOPMENT, APPLICANT Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 3.88 acres into 14 single-family lots (7,735 square foot minimum size) located on the northwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Urbina outlined the salient points of the staff report. He noted that the General Plan at major intersections required new developments to provide expanded landscape treatments. For this project, the applicant was proposing expanded landscaping at the corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive. The block wall would be approximately 43 feet from the curb face; however, the City Council recently approved a tentative tract map at the northeast corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Gateway Drive. In that case the Council wanted a minimum distance of 50 feet from the corner to the 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 2004 perimeter block wall. Therefore, staff was recommending a condition that the landscaping be expanded an additional seven feet at the corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra Drive so that the perimeter wall would be located 50 feet away from the curb face. Mr. Drell recalled that the Council also wanted that same landscape at the Shepherd Lane intersection. He asked for the distance on the Shepherd Lane corner. Mr. Urbina stated that it was approximately 30 feet from the new curb. Mr. Drell asked if this was one of the larger lots where they could remove a little more of the corner. Mr. Urbina said the lot was listed as 8,081 feet, but it seemed like there could be room for an expanded landscape treatment at the corner. He recommended asking the applicant for any objections to providing an expanded landscape treatment at Frank Sinatra and Shepherd Lane. Mr. Urbina recommended approval of TT 33018 based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval, and recommended that a new condition be considered requiring an expanded landscape treatment for the corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Shepherd Lane. .. Commissioner Lopez asked about the existing homes across the street and asked if that corner was at a 50-foot radius. Mr. Urbina said it was less, approximately 30 feet or less. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Urbina recalled the kind of landscaping that area had that Commissioner Lopez was referring to. Commissioner Lopez concurred that it was the entrance to Shepherd and had a wall and some light landscaping on the corner. Mr. Urbina didn't recall the existing landscaping. Referring to one of the pictures of the area, Mr. Urbina concurred that the landscaping appeared to be rather low scale with no significant trees. For the proposed tract at the corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra, he said the applicant was proposing to plant five palm trees, some boulders and a mixture of shrubs and vines. So the landscaping proposed by the applicant for the corner of Frank Sinatra and Portola would be more substantial. He said if the Commission was inclined to add a condition requiring an expanded landscape treatment for Shepherd Lane and Frank Sinatra, staff would expect there would also be palm tress, shrubs and some boulders similar to the corner of Frank Sinatra, although not as many. Commissioner Campbell said they would then want to require the developer to the west adjust their landscaping to match. Mr. Drell stated that the City didn't have that ability. Commissioner Campbell didn't think it would be fair 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 2004 for this developer to be required to do that either. Mr. Drell agreed that was a valid point of view. Commissioner Lopez asked if there were plans to bury the power lines on Frank Sinatra. Mr. Drell thought they would have to be relocated. Chairperson Jonathan noted that there was a condition to underground onsite utilities, but he didn't think that would cover the larger poles. Mr. Drell thought the poles on Portola would also have to be relocated. He said if they were transmission lines, they were talking about $2 or $3 million a mile. Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received confirmation that it wasn't a condition that the applicant had to satisfy. Mr. Drell said they would have to be relocated because the right-of-way was moving. Mr. Diercks concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any plans to underground those lines. Mr. Drell said no. There was discussion of undergrounding the lines on Gerald Ford as part of this assessment district, but there was no private developer with the wherewithal to pay that, so they would spread that cost amongst a large piece of property and, hopefully, get some contribution from the City. Chairperson Jonathan noted that he had the experience where he was required to move lines, but by fortunate coincidence Edison was planning to underground, so they did it all at once. It was much easier to do when they were opening up the street. Mr. Drell agreed. That was why on the Gerald Ford situation they were saying if they were ever going to do it, they should do it now instead of spending the money to move them (which was still substantial) and throw that in with the undergrounding. That was still a question the property owners and the City were weighing because the City would probably have to step up as well. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was an option here because there were no pending plans. Mr. Drell agreed. He said this was a case where they were looking at one little property. The other one was when they were looking at all the various projects and if they were ever going to consider it, this was the one opportunity that would make it possible. If it wasn't a horrendous problem on Gerald Ford, perhaps they might look at it elsewhere, but it was a huge sum of money. Commissioner Campbell asked if there was going to be an emergency gate to Portola. Mr. Urbina said no, because the cul-de-sac length did not exceed 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 2004 500 feet. Commissioner Campbell noted that it was also close to Frank Sinatra. Regarding the 50-foot setback for the corner to allow landscaping, Commissioner Tschopp said he was assuming that was arrived at through years of experience and that was the minimum needed to make a nice statement on a corner of that nature. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Tschopp asked if on an interior corner that amount of space would be needed. Mr. Drell said every situation could be different. On the Rilington case on the other corner, the corner opposite was going to be a school or a park, so it would be an open corner as well. There was some sentiment on the Council to have a significantly larger space with 100 feet. On a little project that was impossible, so they came up with a standard that seemed reasonable. He said that the 50 feet was not measured from property line, but the curb line. So in this particular case, the additional piece of ground was relatively minimal. The other consideration was in most of the cases, they were looking at these kinds of back corners of these pie-shaped lots, so the land they were losing wasn't all that useful to the lot itself and asked to see the landscape �• plan. Commissioner Campbell asked if Desert Willow was 50 feet at the corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra. Mr. Drell thought it was at least that. Looking at the proposed corner, he didn't think it substantially diminished the value of that rear yard by taking that back corner. It was a matter of weighing the desire by the Council to keep these corners as open as possible with the desire to not unreasonably diminish the value of the interior lots. Commissioner Tschopp noted that they were also asking for the other corner to be 50 feet. Mr. Drell said it was something to be considered. Commissioner Tschopp asked Mr. Drell to show what that might look like on the other corner. Mr. Drell asked if the landscape plan went all the way to the other corner. Mr. Urbina had an 11 by 17 copy, but he didn't have the full-sized copy available at the meeting. Commissioner Campbell recommended putting up the other map and showing where the corner would be cut off. (It was approximated off of the tentative tract map.) There were no other questions for staff and Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. Iir 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 2004 MR. JIM FRANKLIN, 211 East Canyon Drive in Palm Springs, addressed the Commission. He stated that he was present representing Lauri Kibbey and Pele Development. He also had with him Jay Forbes with Pele Development and Bill Pope from Hacker Engineering. They read, understood and were aware of all the conditions and agreed to everything except this new condition, which they hadn't been aware of. He said they were present to answer any questions. Commissioner Lopez asked Mr. Franklin to give the Commission his perspective on that corner and how he thought it would impact that particular lot. Mr. Franklin stated that they had already given up quite a bit on that piece for the right-turn lane at the other end of it. He wasn't sure of the exact number of feet they had given up, but almost two lots because most of the other pieces up along that area have 16 lots. Their goal was to kind of match the other side that was there. He didn't know if that would cause a problem with their retention basins or anything like that since they were unaware of shortening up that one lot. The Commission could see that they have some 7,700 aid square foot lots that they were shrinking down and every time they do something else, they tend to shrink and shrink and they were trying to keep as much as they could. He thought they had a nice entrance there and it would match the other areas that come into that little subdivision back there. He said they would do what they needed to do, but they wanted to keep from eating into it further and further. Commissioner Campbell asked if he knew how many feet there were to the lot. She asked if it was 30 feet like the other side or more. MR. WILLIAM POPE, 41-921 Beacon Hill, Suite A, in Palm Desert addressed the Commission. He said he represented JHA Engineering, the civil engineers/land surveyors on the project. The one thing they kind of had a concern about that particular corner of the property was because they have a storm tech, an underground infiltration system, they had an easement for landscape purposes and one for retention purposes. They had their water, a grade break in the middle of the property, breaking in both directions. Half the water was going to Portola, some storm tech detention basins, and the rest was going to the front side. By diminishing the corner, they were cutting into 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 2004 tow their retention capacity which was designed for these particular lot configurations. He said it might interfere with the design of their underground retention storage. That would be a concern. Mr. Drell asked if the underground was in the lot and not in the parkway. Mr. Pope said it was in the easement area specified. (Mr. Urbina pointed it out.) He said from the curb face back, they had 12 feet to the right-of-way, an additional 8 feet for landscaping and 11 feet for retention purposes. He said this was also done on a tract just northerly on Shepherd Lane within that setback/right-of-way. Mr. Drell said that in that case the retention basin was in the parkway outside the perimeter wall. Mr. Pope said it was within the lot, within the easement of the lot. Mr. Drell stated that it was the easement of the lot, but the perimeter wall of that house was not where the property line was necessarily, but where the perimeter wall would be as opposed to the landscaping. In that case, the �.. retention area was outside the wall. Mr. Pope confirmed in this case it would be outside that property owner's wall. Mr. Drell said the wall would be inside the property line. Mr. Pope concurred. He thought it was 8 feet off of that right-of-way line. Mr. Drell said that in reality where the property line was being shown on the map wasn't necessarily where the wall was going to be. Mr. Pope said that was correct, not at this right-of-way. Mr. Drell said they might actually have a lot more landscaping on that corner than the exhibit indicated and they might have closer to 50 feet, because they were having to put that whole retention area outside the wall. Mr. Pope said it was the same case on the Portola side. He thought they were okay with that, if the City wanted 50 feet and they could 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 2004 do that and it gave them more area for their retention basin. That intersection was for visuality around the corner as well. Commissioner Campbell thought they might sell their houses faster with a nice entrance. Mr. Pope concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification about the wall location. Lot 14 was indicated as 8,081 square feet. He asked if that was shown by the dark lines on the plan. Mr. Pope said that was the right-of-way, which was 12 feet off of the curb face. He confirmed that it did not represent the perimeter wall. There was an easement and he said they basically mirrored what was done on Daisy Lane across the street. Easement No. 2 was an 8-foot wide landscape and sidewalk easement retained by the City and No. 1 was their 1 1-foot wide landscape and storm drain easement. Mr. Drell said they end up with 20 feet from the curb to the wall. Chairperson Jonathan said that wall would have to be east of those two easements. Mr. Pope said they were using that right-of-way for their lot area. Mr. Drell explained that Public Works used to allow retention on the lots themselves. They had stopped doing that and were now requiring retention outside the perimeter. Chairperson Jonathan said he was trying to understand the location of the wall. It would be to the east of the two easements. Mr. Pope said it falls on easement line No. 2; that was an 8-foot easement dedicated to the City. He confirmed that Easement No. 1 , the storm drain easement part of it, would fall within the lot. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the 8,081 square feet was measured up to the wall. Mr. Pope said it was measured up to the dark line, the right-of-way. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 2004 Chairperson Jonathan said that the lot size was somewhat misleading in that the real life lot size to a homeowner did not include the portion outside the wall in terms of usability. Mr. Pope concurred, but said it was done on numerous occasions to get the square footage for the lot. Mr. Drell said that this property has born an extraordinary dedication requirement. Chairperson Jonathan said he understood that and wasn't debating it, he was just trying to get an understanding. Mr. Drell said that Chairperson Jonathan was correct; functionally that lot was more like 7,800 square feet. There were no other questions and Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed and he asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Campbell thought it sounded like a very nice project and if the developer would provide nice landscaping, she didn't know if she wanted to impose a condition that they had to have 50 feet like at Portola and Frank Sinatra. She thought maybe something between 30 and 50 feet might be appropriate. But she was in favor of the project and wanted to hear the comments of the other Commissioners. Commissioner Finerty said she was also in favor of the project, but would like to see the area at Frank Sinatra and Shepherd expanded to 50 feet. In the picture they were looking at, they could see the pathetic landscaping on the opposite corner and didn't want to see that mirrored. Because this was a new project, they have the opportunity to use the General Plan, which was something they worked long and hard on, and this was something they all agreed along with the Council that they would like to see because they thought it would enhance the north sphere. So she would definitely like to see it. On Lot 14, if they had palm trees on that corner that would enhance the lot as well. They would have that prettiness as they look out. Commissioner Campbell thought those two lots would sell first with the nice landscaped area. Commissioner Tschopp said he was in agreement with the 50-feet at Portola and Frank Sinatra, but thought it seemed a little arbitrary to say they wanted 50 feet on the other side when they were dealing with the storm drain, etc. He had also seen some small areas/small spaces greatly enhanced by good ` W 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 2004 landscaping as opposed to what was across the street from them. He did want to see them work somehow with the developer and not say 50-feet if perhaps something smaller might benefit both the City and the developer. He wasn't sure how to phrase something like that as a condition. Mr. Drell indicated that they could say they shall work to enhance the corner landscaping and was something that staff would work with them on. He asked about the full-sized landscape plan. Mr. Urbina indicated that it was in his office. Mr. Drell thought that if they could come to some agreement on a staff level, that was fine. if not, they would come back to the Commission. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. Commissioner Lopez said he was in favor of that and thought the job they did on Portola and Frank Sinatra was great. He just wished there was something that could be done with the poles. Not to burden the developer; they go down Portola and Gerald Ford. Mr. Drell said he knew they went from Portola to Monterey. That could be a separate issue just to maybe communicate to the Council that while they were looking at it, especially since the City was the property owner across the street that looked out on these poles, when looking at the underground on Gerald Ford, they might want to also look around here. Commissioner Lopez said he would like to incorporate that at least into the minutes. As far as the project was concerned, he was in favor and liked the idea of the applicant working with staff on that one particular corner while Portola and Frank Sinatra remained at a 50-foot radius. Chairperson Jonathan concurred. In general he advocates the view corridors wherever possible and certainly was in favor of the 50-foot requirement on Portola and Frank Sinatra, but on Frank Sinatra and Shepherd Lane, given that there was a precedent across the street on Shepherd Lane and given that this project was so burdened already with a variety of other requirements, he thought with proper landscaping and with staff's guidance, the corner of Shepherd and Frank Sinatra would be something they were all pleased with and proud of. So he thought that approach made sense, as well. Commissioner Campbell said she would move for approval with 50 feet on Portola and Frank Sinatra and the developer working with staff on the entrance of Shepherd Lane and Frank Sinatra with 30 to 50 feet, whatever would make staff happy, and that would make the Commission happy. Commissioner Tschopp concurred and seconded the motion. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 2004 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. 2318, approving Case No. TT 33018, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that the meeting was informational. Chairperson Jonathan noted that there was a structure with a thatched roof and colored mosaics and asked if that was an Art in Public Places project. Mr. Drell said yes, it was a palapa. Chairperson `.. Jonathan asked if it would be coming down soon. Mr. Drell said no, it was a permanent exhibit. Commissioner Campbell asked if they had seen the new designs on El Paseo. Chairperson Jonathan said they were beautiful. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty stated that the meeting was informational. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting was canceled. X1. COMMENTS Commissioner Tschopp noted that next Wednesday night they had a hearing for the mobile home park and asked staff, in the report given to the Commission, if they could delineate the parameters and responsibilities of the Planning Commission with regard to this matter. He thought that would be very helpful. Also, if they conveyed that to the public it might help keep some of the discussion down. Mr. Drell thought both reports kind of went 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 2004 through that and described the constraints on the Commission relative to the law. He said they could kind of emphasis that in the oral report that their ability to condition and restrict was constrained by the state law. Commissioner Tschopp said that perhaps he could delineate it to the point of saying which points the Commission were being asked to address. He thought that would be very helpful to the Commission and the audience. Chairperson Jonathan thought that was an excellent idea. In the staff report they could make it very clear what the limits of their responsibility and authority on the matter were, with the assistance of Counsel if necessary, then he could kind of emphasize that when introducing the matter and hoped some of the testimony would be limited to only those things that were really in their domain. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be a new survey since there were 191 coaches and they only received a response from 79. Mr. Drell said no, they were only required to survey once and if people didn't respond, they didn't respond. He thought perhaps the reason some people didn't respond was because the piece of information that would most determine their response would be the price tag. For whatever reason, that information was excluded from the public hearing process. They weren't required to do that until after it was over. Chairperson Jonathan noted that meeting would be Wednesday, December 29 at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Drell concurred. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by minute motion adjourning the meeting to Wednesday, December 29, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. Motion carried 5- Theme ing w d�ourned at 7:0 p.m. PHILIP DRELL Secretary ATTE SABBY JOI THAN, Chairperson Palm Desert lanning Commission /t m 16