Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0207 �"��r� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � ` TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 7, 2006 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER ' � 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE � * � * � * � � � � � � � � * * � � � * * * � � * � * * * * � � � � * * � � � * � I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Lopez called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tanner led in the pledge of allegiance. I11. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chair Cindy Finerty, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell Van Tanner � Members Absent: Dave Tschopp 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 January 17, 2006 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the January 17, 2006 minutes. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Finerty abstained). �... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7 2006 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION .r�r Mr. Drell summarized pertinent January 26, 2006 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. V11. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 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. VAR 05-03 - SELIVESTR SAVAROVSKY, Applicant Request for approval of a variance to allow a reduction of ""' the R-1 13,000 zone side yard setbacks from 12 feet to 5 feet and from 8 feet to 5 feet for construction of a one- story single family home with an attached second unit on a 52.5-foot wide lot at 44-835 Santa Ynez Avenue. Mr. Urbina reviewed the staff report and recommended adoption of the findings and draft resolution approving Case No. VAR 05-03. He noted that a letter was received today which was distributed. The letter of objection was from the property owner of four apartment units to the south. The letter claimed that their property values would be harmed if a five-foot side yard setback was approved and that it would interfere with the peace and quiet of the tenants in the apartments. Mr. Urbina pointed out that most outdoor activities would take place in the rear yard, not in a five-foot side yard. In addition, staff didn't think the reduction from eight feet to five feet was significant enough to affect noise level impacts on the adjacent apartments. 2 ,,,,,, MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 2006 � Chairperson Lopez oqened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. SELIVESTR SAVAROVSKY, P.O. Box 12415 Palm Desert, came forward. He informed Commission that he has owned this lot for 18 years and his son is attending Palm Desert High School. He asked Commission to consider this project. He said it was very vital and very important to him to build this project. He said they went through a redesign and it took him 15 months from the beginning. The architectural board had complaints with the first design. It was redesigned and in his opinion was a very nicely designed project that would benefit the community. Right now it is an empty lot and is being used as a dump site. He noticed for several years that the tenants of the four units were dumping stuff there and he had to clean it constantly. He didn't think his request was unreasonable. The difference between eight and five he didn't think was significant and would only affect two of the units, not four. Mr. Savarovsky said he was willing to work with them and participate if they wanted to build a block wall. He would be more than happy to do it together. "�� At the time of construction, he was also willing to help them if they decided to change windows and doors. He wasn't a big developer and was on a very limited budget himself, so when they were asking for improvements on their property, he thought it was not reasonable. But basically as a neighbor, he would love to help in the process when this project develops. Ideally, he thought they should reconsider and they would work together. He really wanted to have a block fence himself because he was more concerned about the tenants disturbing him than his disturbing them because he was building this house for himself and his son. It's for two people only and they were nice, quiet people and wouldn't disturb anyone. So he was respectfully asking for approval of his project. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MS. CAROL REAGAN AND MR. JAMES WEEDIE, 74-318 Alessandro, came forward and identified themselves as the owners of the apartment building. Ms. Reagan had some pictures. She �... 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7 2006 clarified that it wasn't their side yard, but their back yard that +r.� would be effected. She understood that it wasn't eight feet, but 12 feet they would have to go back, because it was her back yard. She said they had 9.5 feet from the back of their property to the fence and they have patios back there. They get higher rents on those two units because they have patios and they are nice. People can go out there and enjoy the beautiful air. They came down and looked at the plans and as she saw it, there would be a walkway going all the way down that side and there's a door going in so there with traffic going in and out, not just in a typical side yard. She saw a door there and then the door to the second unit because on that side was the door for the carport/garage for the back unit. So there would be traffic there. Ms. Reagan said they wanted to be reasonable too and she understood getting more revenue on a house getting built, etc. She would rather keep the lot vacant, but understood getting the best use, but also didn't want to lose money on her property. She also wanted to be able to go outside and be inside and not hear the neighbors next door being five feet away instead of 12 feet away. .wrr MR. WEEDIE said that basically they understood it is a vacant lot and usage of the lot was important. All they were saying is that they want to try and maintain because it's the back patio of two of the units and if they saw those units, they would understand. The other two units didn't have patios. The units with the patios were at a premium and people use them. They use them, the tenants use them. Quiet enjoyment and privacy is what they were talking about. In trying to come up with something that seemed reasonable, all they asked is that the applicant put up a cinder block wall and if noise is there, they weren't asking for the double- paned windows in the whole unit or all of the units, just the back of those two units; the sliding door and one window. And with that they would be willing to waive their objections to the variance in that case. MS. ABBE FLEMMING, 44-836 Santa Ynez, addressed the Commission. She said her house is across the street, so she looks directly at this lot. She has been there almost 19 years. The first 4 „�rr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 2006 ••• question she had was if the second unit was attached to the house. Mr. Drell said it was all one structure. In essence, it was carved out of the whole house and is part of the house. It was indistinguishable. Ms. Flemming asked if there could be renters. Mr. Drell canfirmed that there could be renters in the second unit as provided for in the ordinance. The main unit had to be owner occupied. Ms. Flemming asked for the minimum of number of years. Mr. Drell said that the main unit had to be owner occupied forever. Ms. Flemming clarified that if someone built a house, someone had two years before they could sell it. Mr. Drell said no, there was no prohibition on someone being able to sell the house. °`""` Ms. Flemming said that someone could live there a year and then sell it. Mr. Drell said yes, someone could live there ten years or sell it as soon as it was finished. The main unit had to be owner occupied. Ms. Flemming asked if that was at all times. Mr. Drell said yes, at all times. Regardless of who the owner is, the owner of the building had to occupy the main unit. Ms. Flemming asked who would make sure that was going to happen. Mr. Drell explained that it was a deed restriction enforced by the City. It is a requirement that the City places on them. Ms. Flemming said her biggest concern is that where she lives, the people who own the house directly across the street from her had ,�,. 5 f MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7 2006 a lot of cars and those people rent that house. There are 13 people � living in that house. It is a three-bedroom one bath house with 13 people. She asked if they had any idea of that car situation. It was not good. Not only that, the "party boys" live next to that house. Chairperson Lopez asked if she had any questions or thoughts regarding the application before them. Ms. Flemming didn't want them to have anything they weren't supposed to have because she already has an existing problem with cars, she already had a problem with parking, and she already had problems with a lot of stuff on her street. This would put a house there that is way too big for that lot; she has 25,000 square feet. She had a 1 ,300 square foot home. They were telling her that she could put an 8,000 square foot house in the back of her property which is 35% of the land? � The gentleman with Ms. Flemming made comments from the audience while Ms. Flemming was talking. Chairperson Lopez warned the speaker that he would be asked to leave if he didn't conduct himself in a gentlemanly fashion. If he wanted to address the Commission once Ms. � Flemming was finished, he could step up to the podium, give his name and address, and address the Commission. Ms. Flemming continued and said she has a 25,000 square foot piece of property. Her house is 1 ,300. What they were telling her is that they can have 35% of their land value, so she could have an 8,000 square foot house in the back of her property and have no problem. She thought the proposed house was way too big for what they were trying to do on that piece of property. It's way too big. It was huge. It was massive. It was a 12,000 square foot piece of property and they were trying to put 4,200 square feet on there. It's too much. They already have many problems with parking there and once he sells, and it would happen, once it sold they could have 20 people living there. She already had 13 people living in that other house and the "party boys" next to them. There was no parking on her street already. And next to her in the Condell building, there's a college there that wasn't supposed to be there and there was another building that was not supposed to be there. 6 ..� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7. 2006 � Chairperson Lopez stopped Ms. Flemming because the gentleman in the audience continued to speak during Ms. Flemming's testimony, disrupting the meeting. The gentleman got up, making derogatory comments on his way out of the building. Ms. Flemming apologized. She said it was just that they were really upset because they have to live there and the Commission didn't have any idea what it was like already. They had no clue. And for this house to be so massive on this lot, there was no need for it at all. It was a 4,000 square foot home. That was huge. And if he sells, they could have 50 people living in that house. They had a lot of problems already and she didn't need any more. She was already putting up six-feet of vinyl fencing; S 15,000 had been spent to try and block the street and she has three driveways. People try to park in her driveway because there was no parking on the street. They tried to park in her driveway all the time. She had to call the cops all the time to report that someone was in her driveway. Chairperson Lopez stated that he appreciated her comments. He asked � if she had any other comments regarding the application before them. Ms. Flemming said they had never been contacted about the size of this house. This was the first contact they'd ever gotten. They had never been contacted about the size of this house ever. She didn't know how that didn't happen. She was just saying that they already have a problem and didn't need any more. Chairperson Lopez thanked her and asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. He asked if the applicant would like to readdress the Commission in rebuttal. Mr. Savarovsky stated that he was building this house for himself and his son. He was not planning to sell. He understood the neighbor's concern. It was also his concern about the next door neighbors. He acknowledged that it was an old house and a lot of people lived there and it was definitely his concern because he would also live there. He didn't like it and was very sympathetic to what the previous speaker said. He was not building this house for speculation, but planned to live here. Regarding the parking � 7 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7 2006 situation, he provided a garage and a driveway, so there would be � no parking on the street. Regarding the unit, it is a one-bedroom apartment in the back. It was probably his cousin that would live there. He wasn't planning to rent it and didn't understand this concern. The lady was irritated because of the next door neighbor and that had nothing to do with him. He was also concerned because they would also be his neighbors. Basically, he was willing to work with the owners of the apartment units. They said they wanted to be reasonable people. They mentioned from 12 feet to five and he said it wasn't from 12, it was from eight. He said there would be no traffic there. Only one back door from his house, so no traffic would be in the five feet. He didn't want to be a bad neighbor and he was willing to work with them and participate. He thought it should not be mandatory, and one way or another they could work out everything because the people seemed reasonable. He understood their position, but didn't think there would be any effect on them because the design was eight feet to five feet, a three-foot difference. He was asking the Commission to approve his project. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for Commission `� comments. Commissioner Campbell asked staff for the square footage of the house. Mr. Urbina said the main house would be approximately 2,800 square feet and the second unit would be 1 ,400 square feet. Commissioner Tanner asked if that included or excluded the garages. Mr. Urbina stated that excluded the garage. The two-car garage was approximately 562 square feet and the one car carport would now be a 200 square foot garage. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that the rear yard setback was 49 feet. Mr. Urbina said it was 41 feet 9 inches to 52 feet for the rear setback. Commissioner Campbell asked about the location of the two apartment units compared to the setback of the house. Mr. Urbina explained that from the applicant's rear property line to those two apartments was approximately 70 to 80 feet. Commissioner Campbell said that if they had a 41-foot setback, then there was about 30 feet to 8 .� , . . . _. ....._. _ ._ . ... . . . . ,,,.i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 2006 � the building limit. Mr. Urbina said that was right. The rear of those two apartment units would face the side yard and the house. Commissioner Campbell clarified that it wasn't the rear setback, but the side yard. Mr. Urbina concurred. He said there were two other apartment units further to the west, but the two people who spoke tonight would be looking at the house after the six-foot high wood fence. Commissioner Campbell also noted that on the apartments they had a rear yard of nine feet. Mr. Urbina clarified that it was nine feet six inches. Commissioner Campbell asked if the patio was built out from that nine feet. Mr. Drell said no, it was the setback of the building. It was nine feet from the edge of the apartment building to the fence. Mr. Drell also noted that it was correct that the required setback would be eight feet on a side yard in this situation. If there wasn't a variance requested, it was a combination of 20 with no side less than eight. The setback could be eight feet instead of five. Commissioner Tanner said it seemed that there were owners and/or tenants of the apartments who were willing to work with the builder of the home if certain concessions are made. The letter was asking for the owner of the building of the home to construct a cinder block wall and � potentially add dual-paned windows. This was his second meeting as a Planning Commissioner, but it seemed to him as if it would be almost senseless to walk away from this project. If there was a shared cost, it was going to increase the value of the applicant's property also to put up a cinder block wall. They heard that the applicant was willing to potentially share that cost. Did it make sense to walk away? He asked if they had tried to get together to work this issue out before it came to this. He asked if there was a reason for them to get together and talk? Mr. Savarovsky spoke from the audience and said he was willing to work with them. Mr. Drell added that relative to the dual-paned windows, as part of the City's new energy initiative there would be significant financial incentives all over the city to replace single-paned windows with dual paned windows. That was something the City was going to want to happen all over the city, so there would be money with the Edison program. That could also potentially pay for a lot of the retrofit costs for the windows and maybe get the whole apartment project retrofitted with dual-paned � 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7 2006 windows. So maybe they could look into the whole mix of options. He � thought relative to the variance on the side, if there wasn't an agreement, the applicant would just make his house three feet narrower and then that side yard would come into compliance. So there was reason for some compromise here. Commissioner Tanner asked if anyone had looked into the cost of a cinder block wall running along the entire side of the new dwelling. He asked if they knew the cost. Mr. Drell thought the price was around S 100 a lineal foot now. Commissioner Tanner asked about the length. Mr. Drell thought it was around 140 feet. Commissioner Tanner noted that would mean $14,000-$15,000. Staff indicated that the portion along Maple Leaf Plumbing was already done. Commissioner Tanner concurred. Mr. Drell said that if it was just on the apartment rear portion, which was 80 plus feet, it would be approximately $8,000 or 59,000. Commissioner Tanner asked Chairperson Lopez what the next step would be. Chairperson Lopez said he would ask for additional comments from the other Commissioners. Commissioner Campbell said she had no objection to the five-foot side setback. The entrance would be on that side, but it wasn't a backyard. ` The carport wasn't on the side of the house, it was in front of the house, � so all the people would be doing is walking along the back side of the house to enter their property for the second unit and then have the full back yard. She didn't think that this applicant should be penalized just because his property was under County jurisdiction at the time. The apartment owners said that if the existing wooden fence dividing the property was replaced with a six-foot cinder wall, they would not have any complaints. They were saying that if this was done, they would remove their complaints. It was similar to blackmail. So she would be in favor of approving the application as it stands. Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation from staff that if the house size was reduced three feet in width, then there would be no discussion about the block wall. Mr. Drell agreed that there would not be a variance request on that side. There would still be a variance request for the other side of the house where it was adjacent to another side yard of the other house. He said it was obviously up to the discretion of the Commission, but there would technically be no impact on that side. 10 � wr � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7 2006 � Commissioner Finerty said she tended to agree with Commissioner Campbell because it was three feet, one yard, and to require someone to spend an extra $5,000 for that three feet wouldn't mitigate that much noise or make that much difference. She also didn't want to penalize the applicant. She commented that the apartment being 1 ,400 square feet was quite large and she hoped that noise would not become an issue with the total 4,200 square feet because obviously with a unit or units that large, there's a potential for a lot of noise, but she believed Mr. Savarovsky was trustworthy and he indicated it would be he and his son and one person in the one bedroom, that they are quiet people, that they want to be good neighbors and she would take him at his word. Mr. Drell said that if there wasn't a problem, that was fine. And with an owner-occupied main unit, there was some built-in control over the behavior of those in the secondary unit. Commissioner Finerty noted that was the intent. Chairperson Lopez said that was the direction he was heading toward. They do have several ordinances that have been developed and directed toward situations like this. The first was the request for the variance on one of the ordinances and the second one was as it pertained to an � owner-occupied home with a rental unit attached to it. It must be owner- occupied in order for that unit to be rented and there are ordinances to that effect. He was sure the applicant was fully aware of that situation. As it pertains to the application before them, there was a variance that would be applied to both sides of this unit, not just one, and the need to move forward on this application he thought was one they should take. Obviously there was an opportunity for these neighbors to work together on the situation, whether it be working together to share the cost of a cinder block wall or incentives to replace the windows in the apartment complex. He didn't think those were items that needed to part of the conditions and he was also in favor of the variance request. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Tanner voted no, Commissioner Tschopp absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2375, approving r•�• 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7 2006 Case No. VAR 05-03, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-1 "'� (Commissioner Tanner voted no, Commissioner Tschopp absent). Mr. Drell indicated that the appropriate staff person to contact regarding City incentives for replacing existing windows with dual-paned windows was Pat Conlon in the City Manager's office. B. Case No. CUP 06-01 - LI WEI, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a massage establishment in a 1 ,080 square foot retail / commercial suite located at 73-754 Suite A Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. Commissioner Campbell noted that there would be two employees and asked if that was the total number of employees. She asked if there would be a receptionist. Mr. Stendell said that was his first question to the applicant. He was told there would be no receptionist. There would � only be two employees total. There was a condition in the resolution that allowed only two employees and three rooms so that was the intended use. Chairperson Lopez o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. DAVID LEE, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He said he had a friend who worked at the casino and since the City was booming, he wanted to come here. He thought the city was well organized and beautiful. He had confidence in opening a business here. He noted the changes over the last few years and said in the summer time there were no cars and now there were more cars and people staying all year and he liked it here. He hoped the Commission would approve his application. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for Commission comments or action. 12 i.�ri _:_ � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7 2006 '�""" Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 0 (Commissioner Tschopp was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2376, approving Case No. CUP 06-01 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Tschopp was absent). C. Case No. PP 04-35 - ERNEST GOBLE, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to construct two industrial buildings with a total of 18,846 square feet on a 1 .42-acre parcel located 250 feet north of Gerald Ford Drive and 1 ,100 feet east of Cook Street at 75-178 Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Urbina reviewed the staff report. He recommended adoption of the � draft Planning Commission Resolution approving Precise Plan 04-35, subject to the deletion of Public Works Condition No. 20. Chairperson Lopez oqened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 73-750 St. Charles Place in Palm Desert, came forward and stated that he was the architect on the project. Using the elevations on display, he noted that there was a separate big arch and a similar arch on the building to the right and then on the west facing elevation there was a similar arch to match the arch in the front. Then they had arches in the patio area separating them, as well as using selected desert colors. He indicated that the Architectural Review Board thought it was a very nice project. He said they enjoyed working with staff. He said the only issue was Public Works Condition No. 12. He said the civil engineer designed this project because it's the overall � project. All the water goes into the channel for the most part. The condition said the project shall retain nuisance water onsite and he �• 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7 2006 said it wasn't really designed to do that. The whole flood controi � situation was designed to take nuisance water and everything into concrete valleys and those valleys go to pipes underneath the ground. Mr. Drell said it was his understanding that for those projects that are providing dedicated land for that channel are allowed to drain into it. He asked Mr. Joy if that was the case for this project. Mr. Joy confirmed that they were allowed to drain into the channel. What they were trying to contain was the nuisance water. In this case, the Mid Valley Channel is dirt lined and it aggravates the whole situation if they have small amounts of water going into the channel. No one was maintaining it right � now, it would be City maintained. What they were trying to avoid was long-term maintenance. Mr. Ricciardi said they would be glad to do that, but asked how. Mr. Drell asked how nuisance water was defined and what sort of volumes they were talking about. Mr. Joy replied that it was any type of water left over from landscaping. Typically what they required was a dry well at the bottom of the parking lot. � Mr. Ricciardi said that right now, there shouldn't be any nuisance water because it was all on a drip system. So there shouldn't be any nuisance water from the spray from a sprinkler head like on grass or anything like that. There really wouldn't be any nuisance water there unless it came from another site because the other sites drain through this project. And if they put in a dry well for nuisance water, when the rain comes that would be the first thing to fill up with silt and everything and then it would go to the regular pipes and then after a while the dry well would become useless after four or five years. Mr. Joy said it was always a possibility that during the grading permit process they might be able to demonstrate that there would be no nuisance water. If that could be demonstrated, they wouldn't have to provide any dry wells or anything like that. Mr. Ricciardi said they could work with staff on it. 14 �r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7 2006 � Mr. Joy concurred. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty moved for approval with the deletion of Public Works Condition No. 20 and amending Public Works Condition No. 12 to add that the applicant would work with staff. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion and commended Mr. Ricciardi. She thought it was a very beautiful project. Chairperson Lopez also commended Mr. Ricciardi on designing very handsome buildings. Commissioner Tanner concurred, hoped the entire area would be half as pretty as this, and said it was a nice project. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 0 (Commissioner Tschopp was absent►. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner `� Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2377, approving Case No. PP 04-35, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4- 0 (Commissioner Tschopp was absent►. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that there was no meeting. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that she didn't attend the meeting. �.. 15 (. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7 2006 C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE � Commissioner Finerty stated that the meeting was canceled. X1. COMMENTS Commissioner Tanner commended Chairperson Lopez on how he ran the meeting. Chairperson Lopez asked for and received confirmation that everyone would be present at the next meeting. Mr. Drell informed Commission that the Draft EIR for the Cornishe at Bighorn project would be distributed to them within the next couple of days. He indicated that it would be scheduled for the next meeting (February 21 , 20061. X11. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. � PHILIP DRELL Secretary ATTEST: L- JAMES . OPEZ, Ch rp rs n Palm D s t Planning C m ission /tm 16 .�