Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0117 �1��� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � - TUESDAY - JANUARY 17, 2006 . • 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tschopp called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. It was announced that Commissioner Tanner had already been sworn in. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Dave Tschopp, Chairperson Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell � Van Tanner Members Absent: Cindy Finerty Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the December 20, 2005 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Chairperson Tschopp, approving the December 20, 2005 minutes. Motion carried 2-0-2 (Commissioners Campbell and Tanner abstained, Commissioner Finerty absent). MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17 2006 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent January 12, 2006 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP 04-23 - JEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM SPRINGS AND DESERT AREA, Applicant Request for approval of a first one-year time extension for a precise plan of design, including a height exception, for a community center facility on 8.5 acres on the west side of Portola Avenue, approximately 1600 feet south of Gerald Ford Drive, 36-775 Portola Avenue. Action: � It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4- 0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). 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 No. PP 05-19 - BILL MacMASTER, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to allow construction of two contiguous industrial buildings with a combined square footage of 20,010 square feet on .98-acres located at 34-501 and 34-601 Spyder Circle. Mr. Urbina reviewed the staff report. He noted that a letter was received from � Steve Levinson, the President of Summit Properties, the applicant for the 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17 2006 Falling Waters project expressing concern about the proposed two-foot rear yard setback and the aesthetic impacts on future condominiums that would be facing east. The current site plan for Falling Waters had three units looking toward the east at the rear of these buildings. Mr. Levinson indicated to Planning staff that he would want the applicant for this project, Mr. MacMaster, to pay for the cost of installing 36-inch box sized trees, as well as the cost of labor, delivery and the irrigation system to provide aesthetic screening of the rear of these buildings. Mr. Urbina read Community Development Department Condition No. 10. He said that in conversations with the MacMaster project architect, they were concerned that the condition as presently worded was too open ended. Therefore, staff wanted to add the following sentence after the first sentence to clarify specifically what mitigation Mr. MacMaster should provide in order to allow the rear yard setback reduction, "Mitigation shall include payment for the installation of six 36-inch box trees. The amount of compensation shall include the cost of the trees, delivery, labor for installation and the cost of installing the irrigation system for the trees." If this building had landscaping along the rear with a greater setback, there would have been six trees required at a spacing of 25 lineal feet. Both buildings have a total length of approximately 154 feet. Staff thought that payment by Mr. MacMaster to the property owner to the west for the installation and irrigation system of six 36- inch box sized trees would be fair. He recommended the addition of that sentence to Condition No. 10. Mr. Urbina recommended that Planning Commission approve PP 05-19, subject to the findings and conditions. Commissioner Campbell commented on the blank walls facing the condominiums where the trees would be placed. She asked if there was something they could do, not windows, but cut outs or something to make the design more eye appealing instead of having something flat and one color. She also thought there could be a lot of sun reflection impacting the condominiums because of the wall. Mr. Urbina said that the proposed grade elevation for the Falling Waters condominium project would be 12-14 feet higher and there would be a six-foot high block wall on top of the retaining wall, so they would only be seeing the top 10 or 12 feet of this building. Nevertheless, if they thought additional design mitigation should be done, the project architect was present and he could let them know if there were any additional aesthetic details that could be added to the rear. Mr. Drell requested that Mr. Urbina show where the visible area of the building could be. He did so and indicated it would approximately be the top two panels. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17 2006 Commissioner Campbell asked if it would be the same for the other building. Mr. Urbina said part of the second panel would also be seen. Mr. Drell explained that the Falling Waters grade was also descending, so it was probably similar. So essentially the top two panels. Two-thirds of the wall was obscured by the garden wall and grade. Commissioner Lopez said that if everything was in perspective in the drawing, Lot 22 was basically across from the volleyball court. Mr. Drell indicated that the volleyball court was going to get moved. The recreation area would be moved to the corner because the corner was the lowest part of the lot and that was the best place to put in a retention basin, so there would be units there. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that more building would be seen by the condominiums. ThaYs why she didn't have a problem with Lot 22 because there wasn't anything there, but that was changed. As long as the trees shown in the second pictures were that high they should be fine. If they grew too slow, then they had to do something about it. Mr. Drell said that if the developer of Falling Waters was developing all by himself, he would be � putting in landscaping there as well. So this wouldn't be the only landscape material back there. Each would have had an obligation. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that it would be very well camouflaged. Mr. Drell said yes. There would probably be other shrub material and maybe some palm trees, but for better or worse, they wouldn't want to be planting trees closer than 25 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked if staff had any concern. Mr. Drell said no. He noted that it was an unusual situation where they had industrial properties and if the industrial zoning of this property had been maintained from the original general plan, there wouldn't be a conflict. This situation was set up by the City by insisting this property be residential, which then created the additional obligation on all the industustrial properties since they're adjacent to residential. They were contributing to the mitigation of their buildings, but to a certain degree the residential project should share some of the obligation as well. He felt this was a good, fair solution. Chairperson Tschopp asked if the material was concrete. Mr. Urbina confirmed that it was painted, tilt-up concrete with scoring lines. Mr. Drell said there was sometimes a dilemma. Did they want to draw attention to some things or make them unobtrusive and more likely to disappear with landscaping? ���� � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2006 Commissioner Tanner asked if they would have the same problems with the property on the north side of Falling Waters. Mr. Drell indicated that the developer to the north did a similar deal where and he is providing landscaping for the same rationale. It didn't seem to make sense to screen the building by putting trees in a hole. Obviously, if they start the trees 12 feet higher, they are far more effective at screening that building. But they already had a similar deal with the property owner to the north. There were no other questions for staff and Chairperson Tschopp oqened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. RANDALL JEPSON and MR. BILL MacMASTER came forward. Mr. Jepson said they heard the presentation and asked Mr. Urbina to display the section views they submitted to give a better understanding of the adjacent property to their immediate west. He noted that they could see the influence of the adjacent property and the proposed retaining wall. They were just hearing now about the potential relocation of the recreation facility. Until yesterday, they didn't know there would be residential units immediately adjacent to them. But still with that understanding it was their desire to go ahead and participate with the adjacent property owner to take those trees, which they would have been obligated to buy, and provide that to that project and between the two of them to enhance the building. He heard comments as to the material and finishes of the wall panels. He said they were largely flat panels. There were accent panels sprinkled throughout the building with a sandblasted texture. This also had a form line or a definite scoring pattern to it and then sandblasted to get the rough aggregate look next to the painted finish. They proposed reflective blue and green glass, as well as a brushed aluminum-type canopy element in the front. He thought it would be a complimentary building to the area. Mr. MacMaster addressed Condition No. 10. He wanted to adjust it minorly. He would rather not leave it open and would like to put a dollar amount on it. Their landscape architect thought that these 36- inch box trees were about $500 a piece installed. He thought it was unwise and would cause problems down the line to leave it open like this. He thought it would be wise to put a dollar amount on it. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17 2006 Commissioner Campbell asked how much he thought it would cost--$500 with the trees, labor and irrigation combined? She asked if that was what he was told. Mr. Jepson said it was their experience that they would get some market variation since they were from the Orange County area and placement of trees, and that might be somewhat different. Their experience had been approximately $500 each for a tree of this kind and that would give them a value of approximately $3,000. Mr. MacMaster would have to agree with him, but he was suggesting a not to exceed amount of $5,000 to cover installation. One thing he wanted to make clear, and staff was very helpful bringing it to their attention, but they didn't want to get into a confrontational circumstance at all with the neighbors, particularly with any ongoing maintenance and such of those trees. They wished it to appear as giving them the trees and then they would be that property owner's responsibility. They didn't want to get into any kind of protracted arrangement with ongoing maintenance and such. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that those trees would be on ,,� the other property's side of the wall. And once they were planted, he didn't want to maintain them. Mr. Jepson concurred. Commissioner Tanner asked if the trees being planted by Mr. Jepson would be in conjunction with the other trees already being planted. Mr. Drell said no, they would just be reimbursing them for their cost. And the suggestion was to not exceed $5,000. Mr. Jepson asked if Mr. Drell thought that was fair. Mr. Drell said it was fine and was the simplest solution. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that they were asking them to amend Condition No. 10 to not exceed $5,000. Mr. Jepson said yes, they wanted to put a maximum monetary value and they could note that the amount would not exceed $5,000. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17. 2006 Mr. Drell reiterated that it could read that the applicant shall reimburse the adjoining property owner for the installation of six 36-inch box trees including delivery, installation and irrigation not to exceed $5,000. Mr. Jepson concurred. Commissioner Lopez asked approximately how much building would appear over the wall. Mr. Drell said that the ultimate solution, which they talked about and now that they didn't have water there they could at least think about, and that would be getting rid of the finro feet and making the retaining wall and the rear wall of the building the same. In essence, go to zero. Originally there was concern with a retention basin there, but they might want to at least think about that to see if it made sense. Mr. Jepson explained that their concern with that issue was of a structural nature and to impose the surcharge of that load onto their building. He didn't think he could prudently recommend that to Mr. MacMaster. ' �+ Mr. Drell asked how much of the wall would be visible. Mr. Jepson said they were estimating approximately ten feet. Mr. Drell said that normally with a boundary being commercial/industrial, sometimes they have eight-foot walls. The building is just slightly a more exceptional wall then they would normally have. The bigger problem in terms of aesthetics would be the views of the mechanical equipment from the second stories of these condominiums. Mr. Jepson said they have made an effort to fully screen those on all four sides and they would be toward the front of the buildings. He thought they did a reasonable job with that. Mr. Drell said there was an inherent puzzle with the combination of grades and changes in zone. The good news was that there weren't any great views to the east anyway. Chairperson Tschopp asked if they understood that if they and the adjacent property owner couldn't come to an agreement on that$5,000 figure, it could come back to the Planning Commission. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17 2006 Mr. Jepson said it was their desire to structure the condition in such a way that after this evening they wouldn't have to come back. Chairperson Tschopp said his comment was if the price wasn't exactly right and it needed to come back, they could put in a little buffer. Mr. Jepson believed they already were putting in a buffer. Mr. Drell concurred, noting that the $5,000 would be about $800 a tree. Chairperson Tschopp said they were going to want an agreement anyway as to who would be maintaining the trees and so forth, so they didn't have to carry that burden in the future. Mr. Jepson said in actuality they would be depositing money with them to purchase the trees. Mr. Drell said that the adjacent developer was a reasonable, fair sort of person and didn't think he was looking to get rich out of this deal. He didn't think in a $50 million project $5,000 or$6,000 or even $6,500 would create too much heartburn. It was up to the Planning Commission on how they ,� wanted to cap it. Commissioner Campbell didn't think they knew that much about irrigation. Mr. Drell said that they could leave it up to him to bring back. He thought the numbers were probably close in terms of magnitude. He didn't think it would be radically different. Mr. MacMaster imagined that the numbers were reasonable and fair, but if the developer is planting many trees across that area, maybe 100 trees, six trees would probably come down to $100 a piece. He just wanted them to keep that in mind. He asked what the developer was thinking being surrounded on three sides of his project by industrial property. Also, as far as he knew, that property is zoned Service Industrial today. He asked if that was correct. It wasn't residential. Mr. Drell explained that the City Council mandated that it be residential over the protests of the property owner. So they have all sorts of things going on. He thought this was a good accommodation where no one was being called upon to do more then they normally would have done if they were developing in isolation of each other. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17. 2006 Mr. MacMaster said he understood that and understood where the City was coming from and their needs, wants and desires and respected that, but he was just trying to tell them where they were coming from since from day one, many thousands of dollars ago and many months ago they had always known this property to be service industrial so they designed their property accordingly. Then all of a sudden in the eleventh hour, wham. So he just wanted them to hear and understand it. He and Mr. Jepson thanked them. There were no further questions for the applicant and Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MR. JOSEPH CICCHINI, RBF Consulting, said he was present on behalf of Mr. Levinson who apologized for not being able to appear. He explained RBF was the engineers on the Falling Waters Tract 34179. Mr. Levinson asked him to introduce some items into the record. One, Mr. Levinson wasn't opposed to the development of this project at all. He wanted that pointed out. The second thing is that item 10 in the conditions of approval, it was Mr. Levinson's intention or desire to have it remain as written, without further alteration as they were hearing this evening. Speaking from his personal opinion as an engineer, his only reservation was if that was enough of a mitigation to screen off the wall heights. The building on Parcel 22, which was his building one, the actual wall would actually extend about 16 feet above the pad grade of the adjacent building of the Falling Waters project. Subtracting out six feet for a garden wall, they would still have an additional ten feet above that which they would see. There was only a 25-foot setback, so that's what they would see. He wasn't a landscape architect, nor did he claim to know much about landscaping, so he wasn't sure if six trees would solve that problem. He would have to refer that back to Mr. Levinson and hoped they would take that into consideration. Mr. Cicchini said that Building 2 was a little bit less. It was actually 14 feet 10 inches above the pad grade that Mr. Levinson's buildings would have. They would see an additional 15 feet of exposed building minus the six-foot garden wall and there would be eight or nine feet there. Those were the issues. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17 2006 The other point they wanted to bring up was that they also did not understand the reason for the two-foot gap separation setback there. They understood about the architect's reasons for the structural considerations. His concern also, getting back to the trees, is his retaining wall will be that high, 14 feet or so and the type of retaining wall they use might require the installation of horizontal fabric called geo fabric that goes into soil on the Levinson side and he wasn't sure what impact that would have on any trees they would be planting. Those were the issues for consideration. He thanked them. Chairperson Tschopp asked if the applicant had any rebuttal comments. Mr. Jepson explained that the two-foot separation was for occasional maintenance that would occur on the building. It had been suggested that there be a zero setback, but they did not want to incur any responsibilities of the adjacent owner to let them go onto his property to access their own building. They felt the two feet would allow for a ladder and painting and collection of any debris that might blow back there. It was purely from a maintenance standpoint. w Mr. Drell said there would have to be some sort of a cap sealing off that finro- feet from the top so that it didn't become a hazard for some kid climbing over the wall and then getting caught. Mr. Jepson said that could all be resolved, so they could effectively close off that gap. Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Campbell thought the applicant was within his rights to build the two buildings. They could have a zero setback instead of two feet befinreen the wall and buildings. As far as the Falling Waters property, even though the wall was going to be a certain height, they were still going to go ahead and do irrigation and landscaping against that wall, so she didn't see any problem with Condition No. 10 to go ahead and have Mr. MacMaster give them or donate $5,000 toward the six trees for the landscaping. She said Mr. MacMaster was right, they were there with service industrial zoning and Falling Waters came in and changed the zone. Falling Waters knew what was going to be on the other side of the wall or that they would be 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2006 surrounded by industrial buildings. She moved for approval with the changes on Condition No. 10 not to exceed $5,000. Commissioner Lopez felt this was frustrating because he knew the circumstances of Falling Waters coming before them and he was sure Falling Waters also understood what they were getting into. He was disappointed, however, that something would go up next door to this facility where someone walking out of their facility or someone looking out the window there would see a ten-foot building right next to their new residence. That bothered him because he thought they created a problem. He wished they didn't have to. He wished what was coming before them was a smaller building versus one 30-feet high. But he also understood the standpoint of the applicant that they have been working on this and then their next door neighbor changed. It was one he would reluctantly go along with, but was disappointed that both applicants were put in the situation. The six trees would have no impact on this building in the years to come. There was still going to be a 10-foot building, nine to 10 feet above the wall that would be there. People years after this would ask why the City allowed this to happen. But unfortunately that was the situation they got themselves into and they would have to deal with it in the future. He reiterated that he would reluctantly go along with the application. As a new commissioner, Commissioner Tanner said he was looking at this from both sides also. However, he tended to agree and would move forward with the approval of the applicant. Going back to the old school, if you know what's going next to you, you have the right to make the choice whether you are going into it. MacMaster's building and that entire surrounding area is industrial. He understood Commissioner Lopez's feeling, too, but people on the outer wall would know what they were getting into because that building, he assumed, would go in first. He asked Mr. Drell for confirmation that the MacMaster building would go in first. Mr. Drell said it would probably be quicker to get this project together than the large residential. The other kind of mitigating factor would be the way these condos were set up, they really face north-south. There was one building that did have a side yard. Commissioner Tanner said there was a side yard approach to those buildings, so they would have an opportunity to know what they were moving next to. It was unfortunate that maybe Falling Waters was going into an industrial area, but he would move for approval of the project as it states and would also like to make sure that in Condition No. 10 that the mitigation would include six trees at 36 inches, not to exceed the $5,000. That would 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17 2006 � � cap the applicant's expense going forward and would certainly give Falling Waters the opportunity to put those six additional trees in there for what he thought was a fair price. He said he would move to approve. Chairperson Tschopp said he saw it a little differently. Falling Waters was a good project that meets some of the needs for housing in Palm Desert. He thought it was a well-designed project and they all knew why it was in that location. Notwithstanding that, Falling Waters asked for a zone change. At the same time they have Mr. MacMaster asking for an exception from a 25- foot setback to two feet, so they have two applicants coming forth asking for exceptions. He didn't think the Planning Commission was sitting in the middle. He thought it was something the adjoining property owners should sit down and discuss and come up with a viable solution. He wasn't sure if six trees or$5,000 was the answer. He thought the owner should be on the applicants to come to some agreement and if they couldn't, let it come back to the Planning Commission and they could take a look at the proposal at that point in time. He truly liked the project as designed by Mr. MacMaster. It was well laid out and would be a great addition to the industrial area. He thought Falling Waters was a good project and that the two neighbors needed to work out some kind of agreement that benefited both sides ,�, without putting the Commission or the City in the middle. So he wanted to see Condition No. 10 stay the way it was written, which was basically that they would work together to mitigate the concerns. He asked for a motion or further comments. Commissioner Campbell reiterated her motion to approve the project with Condition No. 10 with the six 36-inch trees, labor and irrigation not to exceed $5,000. Commissioner Tanner seconded the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1 (Chairperson Tschopp voted no, Commissioner Finerty was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2373, approving Case No. PP 05-19, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-1 (Chairperson Tschopp voted no, Commissioner Finerty was absent). 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17. 2006 � B. Case No. PP/HPD 05-27 - KRISTI HANSON, Applicant (Continued from December 6 and 20, 2005) Request for a recommendation to City Council to approve a precise plan of design to allow a 10,856 square foot single family home within the Hillside Planned Residential zone at 630 Pinnacle Crest within the Canyons at Bighorn. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Case No. PP/HPD 05-27, subject to conditions. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MS. KRISTI HANSON, the project architect at 72-185 Suite A Painters Path in Palm Desert addressed the Commission. She reviewed the pictures on display with the Commission. She said it might seem like a really big house, but with the size of lots at Bighorn � and the amount they were selling for, they were finding more and more that people were asking for these larger homes and also for six , car garages that take up a lot of square footage. So even though 10,000 square feet sounded like a lot, a big portion was used by the garage. She said they were very sensitive in the placement of the home so that they didn't impact the privacy of the neighbors. Chairperson Tschopp asked if any of the material on the roof was reflective. Ms. Hanson said no, not at all. It was copper and then just the built up brick roofing. Nothing was reflective. Commissioner Campbell asked if the copper would turn green. Ms. Hanson said it would actually turn into a burnished penny color. Commissioner Campbell indicated that a burnished penny color would blend in. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17 2006 There were no other questions and Chairperson Tschopp asked if there was testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was none and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Campbell noted that they have approved two large homes each totaling over 10,000 square feet in that area. She moved for approval. Commissioner Tanner concurred with approving the project. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting the findings by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2374, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP/HPD 05-27, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). IX. MISCELLANEOUS � A. Case No. PMW 05-11 - BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC and DDH ENTERPRISES, LLC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment for property identified as 630 Pinnacle Crest within Bighorn. Mr. Stendell explained that the parcel map would facilitate Case No. PP/HPD 05-27. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. There was no one and he asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving Case No. PMW 05-11 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). 14 - MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2006 X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that there was no meeting. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE None. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE None. XI. ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE LIAISONS A. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson � Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner � Campbell, electing Jim Lopez as Chairperson and electing Cindy Finerty as Vice Chairperson by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). B. Appointment of an Art in Public Places Representative, Appointment of a Landscape Committee Representative, and Appointment of a Project Area 4 Committee Representative. Action: It was moved by Chairperson Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, by minute motion appointing Commissioner Campbell as the Art in Public Places representative, appointing Commissioner Finerty as the Landscape Committee representative, appointing Commissioner Finerty as the Project Area 4 Committee representative. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). XII. COMMENTS Commission thanked Commissioner Tschopp for his great service as Chair. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17 2006 XIII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. �—____ � �.. ---�-"�' ��� � ,_ PHILIP DREL , Se�ceta.ry ATTEST: � � - DAVID E. TSCHOPP, Chairpers n Palm Desert Planning Commission � /tm .� 16