Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0418 ����"'� MINUTES � _ PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION . TUESDAY - APRIL 18, 2006 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chair Sonia Campbell (arrived at 6:02) Van Tanner �... Dave Tschopp Members Absent: Cindy Finerty, Vice Chair Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Dave Erwin, City Attorney Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the April 4, 2006 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the April 4, 2006 meeting minutes. Motion carried 3-0 (Commissioners Campbell and Finerty absent). (Commissioner Campbell arrived at this point.) .� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18. 2006 � V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent April 13, 2006 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. VI11. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case Nos. GPA 06-01, C/Z 06-01 and TT 31676 - CORNISHE OF BIGHORN, LLC, Applicant ,,,,� (Continued from February 21 and March 7, 2006) Request for approval of a tentative tract map and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to allow the subdivision of 11.87 acres into 7 lots and construction of four single family homes adjacent to the "Canyons at Bighorn Golf Club" west of Indian Cove and south of Dead Indian Creek, and a request by the City of Palm Desert for a general plan amendment from Low Density Residential (Study Zone) to Hillside Reserve and zone change for a portion of the property from Planned Residential 5 units per acre (PR-5) to Hillside Planned Residential. Mr. Drell explained that there were still unresolved issues and recommended a continuance to a date uncertain at which time the matter would be readvertised. Chairperson Lopez stated that the public hearing was still o en and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18. 2006 � The public hearing was left open and Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion continuing Case Nos. GPA 06-01, C/Z 06-01 and TT 31676 to a date uncertain. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty absent). B. Case Nos. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05 and PP/CUP 05-20, EUGENE BREZNOCK AND CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicants Request for approval of a general plan amendment adding Policy 10 and Program 10.A to the Residential Goals, Policies and Programs section of the General Plan; a zoning ordinance amendment adding Section 25.112 establishing development standards for an EI Paseo Overlay Zone; a change of zone to add the EI Paseo Overlay Zone to R-3 and Planned Residential to certain properties; and a precise plan/conditional �,,, use permit to allow the construction of a new 12-unit, 36 keys, hotel condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street. Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report. He also reported on information provided by the City's Business Support Manager relative to the benefit that the proposed project could have on sales tax dollars for the city. Mr. Bagato noted that with the staff report he attached five additional letters in favor and one in opposition, and then today two more letters of opposition from neighbors who had written before and were still opposed to the project, but they could not attend the meeting. Mr. Bagato said staff analyzed the proposals, determined there would not be a negative impact and recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Case Nos. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05 and PP/CUP 05- 20. Chairperson Lopez asked how many years this property has been vacant. Mr. Drell said the motel portion has been abandoned for approximately 10 to 15. There were also many lots that have never been developed. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the overlay zone area had been cut down considerably since the last time they looked at it and asked if there were any �— 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18. 2006 �r.�r plans to increase it in the future. Mr. Bagato replied that over time plans change. Mr. Drell said it depended on the success of this area. It contained the obvious areas for redevelopment; the easy ones. Depending on the success of these projects, that would influence whether there would be demand for more of the same product. Depending on how lucrative the business proposition is,that would determine if it warrants in essence tearing down existing multifamily projects which exist to the west. Again, the economics today probably didn't warrant that, but he didn't know about ten years from now. If it turns out to be a great idea, he was sure the future Planning Commission/Council could decide to expand the area. Commissioner Tschopp understood how supply and demand worked, but asked for confirmation that at this time there were no plans to move forward on additional properties. Mr. Drell said staff didn't anticipate any interest in redeveloping substantial, well-maintained properties to the west. Again, they could be surprised, but that was staff's feeling for the near future within the next five years. Commissioner Tanner noted that this originally came before Planning Commission on March 7 and there were a couple of Commissioners who were concerned about precedent setting. He asked if that had anything to do � with the reduction of the overlay zone area since a substantial amount was eliminated. Mr. Drell said it wasn't precedent setting. Precedents could be either good or bad. Their goal was to encourage a certain sort of redevelopment. It didn't appear to be that productive to encourage it in an area where there weren't that many opportunities. It was generating a lot more anxiety and concern by folks who live in those areas when in fact the likelihood of these sorts of things going on in those neighborhoods was remote given the existing quality of development. Changes in the city happen incrementally. The good news with that was that they wouldn't bite off too big of a piece before they know exactly how it's going to taste and then they have the opportunity to change, modify and adjust as they go forward into the future. Commissioner Tschopp asked for and received confirmation that the traffic report they were given was for full development of 152 units. He asked if staff was assuming for this 36-key development that it would be proportionately less. Mr. Bagato confirmed that the 36 units would be part of the 152 analyzed. He said it would be less than 948; it would be around 100. Mr. Drell said it was around a quarter. Commissioner Tschopp said that all in all with this development the traffic trips generated would be fairly insignificant 4 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18 2006 � and would also keep the streets at a very acceptable level. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. They were assuming the high side even though the hotel would be walking distance to the area. Commissioner Tschopp asked how calculations were done to determine number of trips for Shadow Mountain Drive, because it seemed that most people would reach this property by coming down Portola, taking Larrea or using San Luis Rey and going down Larrea. He asked how they calculated how many would use Shadow Mountain. Mr. Bagato said they looked at the blanket number of how much traffic 152 hotel units would produce and applied that to the current traffic volume on both streets. This was projected to be the worst case scenario because there was more potential to develop on Larrea and these numbers would be split up on different streets. Chairperson Lopez noted that the public hearing was still open and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. WILLIAM DeLEEUW, President of Villa Property Developers, concurred with the staff report. He said he worked closely with staff to make these amendments to the plan and worked on some of the �,,, conditions for approval. He also had the architect at the meeting with him to answer any questions. He didn't have more to add that hadn't already been said at the previous hearing and asked if there were any questions. Chairperson Lopez asked for his address for the record. Mr. DeLeeuw said it was 75656 Via Serena in Indian Wells. Chairperson Lopez asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Chairperson Lopez noted that there was a condition regarding noise and asked how Mr. DeLeeuw would control noise from the deck. Mr. DeLeeuw said that because it was going to be operated as a hotel, they had more concern for noise then even the neighbors because where the neighbors might be irritated, it would affect their bottom line if they had a noisy guest and they had to make a refund from the revenue of a room. They would generally have their own security and a night time security guard and thought they could police their own noise. It was for their own benefit and they also wanted to be a good neighbor. � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18 2006 � Chairperson Lopez asked if the tower element locations and the dome on top could be pointed out on the map. Mr. Bagato did so. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Tanner said he was fortunate to attend the neighborhood meeting and he thought both sides presented themselves in the first 15-30 minutes. There were several questions asked and he thought the applicant not only presented a beautiful start to this overlay zone, but that the residents also would hopefully see as this moved into fruition that this would help the neighborhood as opposed to hindering it. There were concerns about the northerly side and he understood that, but this particular project going in there would be a beautiful start and if they could end up with these kinds of projects along that overlay zone, everyone would benefit. With that, he was definitely moving in favor of granting the variance. He congratulated them on a job well done. Commissioner Campbell concurred. She has been on EI Paseo 18 years and many of the lots have been empty for all those years. She thought this was ,,,�,� a great project for the area. From looking at the new map, from Portola to Larkspur, for the time being that was perfect. There were many empty lots there and they didn't need to tear anything else down for the time being. She was also happy to see so many letters of approval for the project. She agreed it was a project well done and she wished them luck. Commissioner Tschopp liked the idea of cutting the overlay zone down to a much more manageable area so they could see how it develops out and what happens. He didn't see this project as generating significant traffic that would impact the surrounding neighborhoods given the type of roads that lead to it. Height wise, given the dimensions shown and the way the area slopes down toward EI Paseo and Highway 111 and staff's comment that there would be no view impact to the homes to the north any more than a 24- foot home, he didn't have a problem with the height elements. The noise, crime, and lighting weren't too much of an issue given the architectural elements, the conditions placed on the project, and the police department enforcing the laws. So he thought overall it was a very good project. The architecture would be a great boon to the area and he hoped it would be a great start for that whole area right there. He was very much in favor of the project and congratulated them. 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18. 2006 � Chairperson Lopez concurred. He thought the current overlay zone was a good location. He believed that area along Larrea needed to be kick started again and hoped this development would initiate that. He was also happy to see that the overlay zone had been reduced. He also concurred that this project should be a nice addition to that location and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). � It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner,adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2389, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05 and C/Z 05-05. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). ;,,,,,,, It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2390, recommending to City Council approval of PP/CUP 05-20, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). C. Case No. TPM 34211 -WILSON JOHNSON CRE, INC., Applicant (Continued from March 21 and April 4, 2006) Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide 83.2 acres into 22 parcels for property located befinreen Portola Avenue and Cook Street north of Gerald Ford, more particularly described as APN's 653-280-035, 653-390-091 and 653-390-071. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of the project. Chairperson Lopez noted that the public hearing was still open and asked the applicant to address the Commission. �""' 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18. 2006 .� MR. MATT JOHNSON, 73134 Bel Air Road in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He said they worked with staff to prepare this tentative parcel map. It looked similar to one approved six or seven years ago. The issues from the previous owners had all been resolved. They were ready to move forward pending approval of the project. He was present to answer any questions. There were no questions. 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. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2391, approving Case No. TPM 34211, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). � D. Case Nos. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 and TT 34304 -SINATRA& COOK LLC, Applicant (Continued from April 4, 2006) Request for recommendation to the City Council of approval of a change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for 268 condominium units and a 39,792 square foot neighborhood commercial center on 19.6 +/- acres north of Frank Sinatra befinreen Cook Street and College Drive, 37-755 Cook Street. Mr. Drell explained that there were unresolved issues and requested a continuance to May 2, 2006. Chairperson Lopez o en the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was left open and Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission action. 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18. 2006 � Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion continuing Case Nos. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 and TT 34304 to May 2, 2006. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). E. Case Nos. GPA 05-03, C/Z 05-04, PP 05-25 and TT 33719 - CHAD MEYERS/RJT HOMES, Applicant Request for a recommendation to the City Council for approval of a general plan amendment from Community Commercial (C- C) to medium density (R-M) 4-10 dwelling units per acre, a change of zone from Planned Commercial District (PC-2) to Planned Residential 9 dwelling units per acre (PR-9), a precise plan of design, tentative tract map, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental impact to construct a 159-unit single family residential project on 18.67 acres located at the southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue. ,,,, Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report, noting changes on page 2 relative to street widths. Interior street widths would vary between 24 feet, 30 feet (not 32)and 36 feet. The 30-foot(not 34)wide streets would have parking on one side. He recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Case Nos. GPA 05-03, C/Z 05-04, PP 05-25 and TT 33719, subject to conditions. Commissioner Tschopp asked if a traffic signal on Portola was anticipated. Mr. Bagato believed so and said there was a condition requiring the developer to contribute 25%. Commissioner Tschopp clarified that he meant at the entry way into the development. Mr. Bagato said no. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it was just a right-in right-out. Mr. Joy said there would be another exit onto Frank Sinatra. Mr. Drell asked if there was a left in. Mr. Joy said yes. Mr. Drell indicated this would allow a median design that allowed left tums into the project, but only right turns out. But having a right-turn out on both Portola and Sinatra someone would be able to go in any direction depending on which exit they chose. The theory being the signal would create the gaps on Portola to allow the left-turn movements in. Mr. Bagato said that was correct and noted they were also putt�ng in a deceleration lane. .... g MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18 2006 �rrwi Commissioner Tschopp asked how many cars the stacking on Portola would accommodate. Mr. Joy said someone in the audience answered 10 cars. Chairperson Lopez had a concern on Frank Sinatra. The plans showed a secondary entry right-in right-out. The staff report said it would only be used as an emergency vehicle access in and a right-turn out. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Basically, it was a lot easier to have an exit gate then an entry gate. The other thing on an exit gate is no need for a turn around. The problem with entries, there was need of a controller for restricted access, but also a big spot for people to turn around. That was the reason the applicant was choosing to restrict that to exiting only. It wasn't a huge project. Mr. Bagato said he spoke to Mr. Diercks, the City's Transportation Engineer, to see if Public Works was concerned with only having one main entry way and because of the project size, Mr. Diercks didn't think it would be an issue and they didn't see any problems with one main entry off Portola. Mr. Drell said in theory it could be an entry as well. It would be restricted to residents only, which typically didn't have a turn around problem. He said there was sufficient stacking to have an entrance, but the applicant didn't think it was necessary and wanted to see how it worked as just an exit initially. Chairperson Lopez said he was looking for a condition relative to the access � and read Riverside County Fire Department Condition No. 10 that said a second access was required, but didn't really go into a right-in right-out being allowed. Mr. Drell said it could be clarified specifically with a condition. Chairperson Lopez said looking at the map, Frank Sinatra is a busy street. They weren't too far from the intersection and someone could be pulling over trying to get into that entry way with a right-turn in and without a deceleration lane, it wasn't going to work. He wanted to make sure about this access. Mr. Bagato confirmed it was right-out only, but fire trucks would be able to get through. Commissioner Tschopp didn't know if it was the purview of the Planning Commission, but he had a hard time with the energy criteria meeting the affordable housing issue. At 15%, that was about 23 units of affordable housing and he couldn't seem to get the numbers to work or figure out how anyone could ever afford the units with less electrical bills. Mr. Drell said that as a project under 10 units per acre, it fell into a gray area in terms of inclusionary affordable housing. Affordability was a function of total monthly housing cost which includes utilities. Commissioner Tschopp noted that was only after someone was in the house. Mr. Drell said that was correct. He said they've kind of entered a new paradigm in terms of affordable housing in that 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ___________ ._ APRIL 18 2006 �.. 10 years ago, at least valley wide, the market was obsessed with low and very low because the market addressed moderate income housing. What's happened in the last 10 years is that in the market no longer, what used to be the $300,000 home on Shepherd Lane is now $700,000. In terms of relative terms, at $400,000 these units were now at the bottom of the ownership market. It's a fact of supply and demand, and cost of materials and land. Commissioner Tschopp said his question would be more that if they approved this project, it would not have an impact on other projects having to contribute more affordable housing. Mr. Drell said when they went through the analysis, it was arduous in terms of figuring the affordability. Given the cost, the way we now approach these projects is the way they are priced; it's hard to say if there's a windfall, but if there's something about the way the project is designed if the houses have an excessive cost they do a proforma and a lot of arguing back and forth and the conclusion they reached is that with $750,000 there was some debate about that; $750,000 didn't mean that much to our housing program. He said our housing program spends $14 million a year in housing subsidies. Staff's feeling was that as both an amenity and as an example of how to demonstrate the efficiency and ,�, efficacy of a whole host of energy conserving measures, it would be better use of that money to deal with the other city initiative, which is energy conservation, and have a more significant impact on this project. And as an example for projects into the future for the rather nominal contribution the project might make to affordable housing. But again, the way the project is designed and built puts it toward the bottom of the market for the product in Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley. The laws of housing economics determine what these will be priced at and staff thought it would have a great impact in this project dealing with the City's energy initiative than with affordable housing. Commissioner Tschopp summarized that Mr. Drell's answer was that it could have an impact on requiring other developments to take on the 15% not in this development. Mr. Drell stated that the obligation is on the Agency, the Housing Authority of the Redevelopment Agency. In addition to that obligation, the Agency is recipient of the tax increment generated by the project. So the conclusion was the project's own tax increment, 20% of the tax revenue generated by the project, would go toward affordable housing. IYs paid every year. The answer is that contribution is relatively small compared to the whole obligation of the Agency and they would have to address that and he had been urging them to come up with a long-range -� 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18. 2006 � plan to address those issues. The Agency's basic emphasis is low and very low and they see that as having to come out of apartments, so they were stressing the development of apartments. Their biggest problem at this point wasn't revenue, it was finding real estate to build projects on. They were working on that further north. The conclusion in terms of this project was that a more significant impact to the public health and welfare could be gained through advancing the City's energy initiative than with the rather nominal contribution it could make to affordable housing. The 20-something units was a drop in the bucket. The Agency has other strategies to meet the goal and the potential contribution of this project was not going to be sufficient enough to make a difference. Commissioner Tanner asked for confirmation that this wasn't the way it was going to be done for the rest of the 800 units in the city of Palm Desert in that same northern sphere, 15%to affordable homes. Mr. Drell answered that the obligation is on the Agency. The Agency is the one who gets the money. The Agency collects housing revenue, developers don't. By virtue of being in a project area, they don't get a nickel's worth of economic advantage. It is the Agency who gets the revenue and basically the Agency was given the opportunity to take some of that revenue and create affordable housing in this project. At this particular location, they didn't feel this was where they � would choose to create affordable housing. There were no other questions for staff. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. CHAD MEYERS, 41-370 Sparky Way in Bermuda Dunes, stated that he is the project manager for RJT Homes. He thought staff covered everything. He said that he, the architect, the sales and marketing director and the civil engineer were all present to answer any questions. Commissioner Campbell noted that Commissioner Ray Lopez from the Architectural Review Commission made a comment regarding the pool and how the sun would be setting on the north where there was so much landscaping and not enough sun on the pool in the winter months and he asked the landscape architect to look at that. She asked if that comment was taken to heart. 12 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18 2006 ��.. Mr. Meyers said he was specifically addressing the palm tree growth to the southeast of the pool and he wasn't sure, but believed some trees were removed. But they did take his comment to heart. Chairperson Lopez said the other issue was the secondary gate on Frank Sinatra; he asked for confirmation that would be an exit only, right-turn only. Mr. Meyers said yes. What they were concerned about was not only the bail out lane, but they thought landscaping was more attractive than a big bail out lane in the middle of their residences there. It was a secondary entrance on a small project and they were concerned about Circuit City trucks pulling in there lost and how trucks would get out. They could put up all the signs in the world, but it would not keep that guy out. How would they get out of there? Frank Sinatra is busy and thaYs a problem. So they actually designed a curb where it would be pretty hard to get in there, but the Fire Department could easily get in there. But the average car would be pretty well challenged. 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 close . Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell said she was happy to see that this was changed from commercial use to residential. On the second story, instead of having the living area facing Desert Willow, she thought it was a good idea to have a beautiful view of the golf course, but otherwise it is a beautiful location and she liked the name of the project. Catavina reminded her of a place in Baja. She also liked the landscaping and architecture. Commissioner Tanner said he also liked the look of the project. His concern was that looking at the lot size and what they were putting on those lot sizes, it concerned him that they were just bunching up. He knew that cost of land was prohibitive and they had to be able to put as many units on the acres that are available. But he didn't want this to become a squashed neighborhood. Although it looked very pretty now and it was going to be a great project, he had his concerns that the lot sizes were just too small. Mr. Drell suggested visiting the new project that was just completed next to One Quail Place off of Park View that project had a slightly less density. The proposed project would be eight units per acre plus and the one on Park View is seven units per acre. It was similar and would give an idea of what � 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18 2006 .� it would look like. He said this was the only way to get the houses back to $400,000. Commissioner Tanner acknowledged that and knew it was a concern, but it wasn't going to get any cheaper if it stayed vacant for five, six or seven years. It was just a concern and he would look at that other project. He wouldn't pull his vote as a result, but at the same time he wanted to voice his opinion about wanting to see larger lots. Commissioner Tschopp said they would all like to see larger lots and be penalized for building a house bigger than 4,000 square feet, but this was on the upper end of the PR-9, the medium density, and was still within that range. It was surrounded by residential across from Desert Willow, so he thought it was better than commercial, although it would have been community commercial and a little bit different mix then typical retail, but he thought it would fit into the neighborhood very well. Traffic was considered and it shouldn't be an impact and he was in favor of the project. Chairperson Lopez concurred. He thought the project was going to be a much nicer addition to this area then having commercial, so he very much in favor of the recommendation to City Council for the general plan amendment. He also thought the project itself had a lot of inerit. The architecture was very nice and for PR-9, it was a nice development. He was � also in favor and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2392, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. GPA 05-03, C/Z 05-04, PP 05-25 and TT 33719, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. 14 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL_18. 2006 � X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that the next meeting would be April 19. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE No update. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE No update. D. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Commissioner Tanner said he has been attending the Park & Recreation Commission meetings. He stated that Freedom Park is on its way. As of today, within the next finro weeks they would be pushing �,,,, dirt. Secondly, on the 36-acre Wilson Johnson parcel, it looked like there would be another regional park and potentially a skating rink and physical fitness center. There were three or four proposals to consider. Residents of Palm Desert would be asked to fill out a flyer asking what recreation amenities are needed in Palm Desert. He said there are a lot of good things happening at Parks & Recreation. He requested that it be added to the agenda for meeting updates. He planned to attend the meeting at least once a month, although they usually didn't have meetings in June, July and August. XI. COMMENTS None. � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18 2006 � � XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:23 p.m. ,�.1 . � n�.- PHILIP DRELL Secretary ATTEST: JAMES K. EZ, Chairpe Palm Des t lanning Com i sion /tm � 16 �