Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0801 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - AUGUST 1, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chair Cindy Finerty, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell Van Tanner "no Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Dave Erwin, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Associate Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the July 18, 2006 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the July 18, 2006 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION „W None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1. 2006 No VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 06-04-MESA VIEW DEVELOPMENT, LLC, JAMES E. HUMMER AND JUDY B. ALLEN, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment for Lots in Tract 27520-4 at 142 Tekas, 148 Tekas and 119 Wanish within Bighorn. B. Case No. PMW 06-06 - PALM DESERT FUNDING COMPANY, LP, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment to create the park site associated with the Laing Homes development at the northwest comer of University Park Drive and College Drive. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. TPM 34807 - PACIFIC POINTE PARTNERS, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 9.60-acre parcel into seven parcels for condominium and building address purposes for property located at 73-555 Leilani Way. no 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2006 Mr. Drell informed Commission that due to a change in the project that wasn't advertised, staff was requesting a continuance to a date uncertain. When the changes are made and received, staff will renotice the public hearing. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Lopez left the public hearing oQen and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, by minute motion, continuing Case No. TPM 34807 to a date uncertain. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 05-09 - CINGULAR WIRELESS, Applicant Request for approval to construct a 75-foot high monopalm wireless telecommunications tower with a related equipment building located inside the perimeter wall of Palm Valley Country Club at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and �.. Eldorado Drive. Mr. Urbina reviewed the staff report. He noted that four letters in opposition were received from area property owners citing view impacts, being an eyesore, and diminished property values as concerns. Staff felt that with the proposed landscaping and conditions of approval that the proposed monopalm would not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood as stated in the staff report. Staff recommended that Planning Commission approve Case No. CUP 05-09, subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. Commissioner Finerty asked why it was necessary to have the monopalm right on a major arterial. When looking at the reception coverage maps provided, she wondered if the project site were moved closer to 1-10, if it would have less of an impact on a major arterial. Mr. Urbina indicated that the applicant said that the Palm Valley Country Club General Manager said this was one of the few areas they were willing to allow for leasing for a monopalm. He didn't know if the applicant explored any other alternative sites, but this was the preferred site. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1.2006 ..r Commissioner Finerty questioned the height. There was quite a nice cluster of existing trees, but none were 75 feet tall. She asked if there was any thought given to reducing it approximately ten feet in an effort to screen it more since it would be on a major arterial. Mr. Urbina said the applicant claimed they need the proposed height in order to achieve their signal coverage objective. They usually like to have their monopalm be a little higher than the live palm trees so that the live trees don't interfere with the signal. The antennas are mounted below the fronds in the trunk. Commissioner Finerty understood and noted that it made it more appealing, but asked if he knew the height of the existing trees. Mr. Urbina said there was also a recently completed monopalm that was also 75-feet high on the south side of Country Club Drive at the maintenance facility at Indian Ridge Country Club. There was also a monopine at 66-feet high. Depending on the number of cell towers in the area, certain carriers could get by with lower heights than others. Commissioner Finerty said she was trying to compare the existing trees and Mr. Urbina said they couldn't have the existing trees too high or they would interfere with the reception for the monopalm. She was trying to get a feel of how high the existing trees were in the area and if there was any wiggle room to reduce it at all. Mr. Urbina estimated that these mature Mexican fan palms ..r were at heights ranging from 50 feet to 60 feet with most of them being at 60 feet. Mr. Drell said they would continue to grow. If and when they continue to grow, Commissioner Tanner asked if they would interfere with the 75-foot tower element and if they would come back and ask for an 80-foot tower. He agreed with Commissioner Finerty. It seemed to him they had a variety of heights on the towers and to put a 75-footer looked like it was standing out. He wasn't sure they were really accomplishing anything because in ten years, each year they could add another foot to the live trees. He asked if they would lose what they were trying to gain here. Mr. Drell said that it would stand out with some degree of room for the trees to grow. In ten years technology might be different and hopefully they would get rid of all these things. The understanding was what they would really have to do is remove those live ones once they start interfering and replace them with smaller again. Inevitably these trees had to stand out and above. In this case most of them are existing. Usually they force applicants to put in trees, but typically they had to start out with this sort of a differential. He said there are three on Highway 74; he knew they were there and he had to look for them to find them. This is one of those necessary evils. He noted they were trying to take down all the power lines and were getting these instead, but didn't know of any alternatives given how difficult it was to get someone to let them ..r 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1. 29 locate that doesn't impact more residents. That was the other balance. Trying to find the right compromise and getting people service; people are very happy if it's their antenna and not if it is someone elses. Chairperson Lopez recalled last year looking at a monopalm palm at the Indian Ridge maintenance yard and initially it received some opposition. He asked if there were any other phone calls or issues on it. Mr. Urbina said that staff hasn't received any other complaints regarding the monopalm at Indian Ridge Country Club. There were no other questions. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. RYAN ELIAS-BERG, representing Cingular Wireless, 4047 Louisiana Street in San Diego, California, 92401, stated that they worked closely with staff and agreed with the proposed conditions. Commissioner Finerty asked if he looked at any other sites that were closer to 1-10 and further away from Country Club. Mr. Elias-berg said yes, they looked at land within the needed area, ... but Palm Valley actually preferred this location. Commissioner Tanner asked if the proposal went before the Homeowner's Association for a vote. (Gloria Kirkwood, the Property Manager of Palm Valley Country Club, spoke from the audience said yes.) Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone in the audience 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. Commissioner Finerty said that if the Palm Valley Homeowners Association voted on it and this is what they want, then she would move for approval and the Homeowner's Association could deal with those homeowners. Commissioner Tanner seconded the motion. Commissioner Tschopp said he would like to have had a more definitive answer as to why they didn't look at other areas closer to 1-10, but given the need in the area and the Homeowner's Association being in favor, he would vote in favor. own 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1. 2006 Wo Commissioner Campbell thought it was well camouflaged and once installed would not be noticeable. She was in favor. Chairperson Lopez concurred and called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2408, approving Case No. CUP 05-09, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No.TPM 34898 -SIENNA PRODUCTIONSIGREG JACKSON, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 1.22-acre parcel into two parcels for property located at 73-750 Spyder Circle. Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of Case No. TPM 34898, subject to conditions. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. GREG JACKSON, 40-634 Carmel Mountain Drive in Indio, addressed the Commission. He thought this was a simple case and 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 Finerty, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. .r 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1. 2006 Now It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2409, approving Case No. TPM 34898, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. PP 05-26 - ELLIOTT LANDER, Applicant Request for a recommendation to the City Council of approval of a precise plan to construct an 86,000 square foot two-story medical and general office building with a height exception up to 34 feet 6 inches on a 4.53-acre site located at 73-650 Dinah Shore Drive. Mr. Urbina reviewed the staff report and recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Case No. PP 05-26 with the height exception, subject to the conditions. Commissioner Campbell noted that the site grade falls five feet from the beginning of Dinah Shore, so even though the building would be 38 feet with the exception, the view would be five feet less. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. The Mid Valley Storm Channel is located at the north end of the site. Per a request for clarification by Commissioner Tschopp, Mr. Urbina showed the Commission the east and west views. Mr. Drell stated that in reality the middle structure would not be seen as prominently since it was such a distance from the edge and may not be seen at all. Commissioner Tanner said it would be seen from drivers along Interstate 10. Mr. Drell said that was correct. It would be seen from a distance and from the front. They would see the narrow section from the front. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. JOHN HOLT of Holt Architects came forward. He stated that he was representing Elliott Lander and Promitory Pointe LLP. He handed out some detailed renderings of the building for the Commission to review. Using a power point presentation, he showed various elevations and views. He said the building was designed so that the central areas regress away. He also said that the sign shown was not included in this application. That would be reviewed at a different time. He indicated that the difference between the parking lot on the r.. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1. 2006 r1 rear and the second level of the parking structure was less than nine feet from surface to deck. Chairperson Lopez complimented Mr. Holt on the great renderings. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission 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. Commissioner Finerty stated that this was great architecture for the Service Industrial zone and she really appreciated the quality work and moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell agreed. She thought it was outstanding architecture and liked that the parking was on the north side and not facing the south side. She seconded the motion. Commissioner Tanner thought this was a great job and the type of architecture wanted in the north sphere. He congratulated the applicant and Holt Architects for putting together a great building. He said it was a job well done. ,.r Commissioner Tschopp said they were going to give Service Industrial a good name. Chairperson Lopez concurred and called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2410, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP 05-26, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case Nos. PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM 34437 - SMITH CONSULTING ARCHITECTS, Applicant (Continued from July 18, 2006) Request for a recommendation to City Council of approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit to construct a 100,500 square foot mixed use retail/office center with a two-story parking structure, an exception to reduce the front yard and no 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1. 2006 rear yard setbacks from 32 feet and 30 feet to 10 feet, a height exception to allow building heights up to 34 feet, an exception to allow a second single-faced freestanding sign on a street frontage less than 1,600 feet, and a tentative parcel map to subdivide 6.10-acres into 13 parcels for property located at 75- 300 Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Urbina noted that the site plan on display was revised since the last Planning Commission meeting. At that time the applicant requested a continuance and stated that he would withdraw the change of zone and delete the drive-thru. The new site plan reflected the deletion of the drive-thru that was at the west end of Building K. The change of zone application to extend the Freeway Commercial Overlay zone was withdrawn and the square footage of Building K was increased by 1,300 square feet. The project still met the parking requirements. He reviewed the staff report, describing the proposed setbacks and height exceptions and recommended that Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Case Nos. PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM 34437, subject to conditions contained in the draft Resolution. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that the July 18 staff requested that this item be continued because one of the concerns was the front yard setback which could set a precedent for other applicants to come forward and request it. He said that staff had obviously come to terms with the applicant requesting a ten-foot setback. Mr. Urbina explained that Mr. Drell was involved in preapplication meetings with the applicant that Mr. Smith and he did not attend. After further review and speaking with the applicant and knowing that the objective was to create a pedestrian-friendly streetscape where they would see the architecture and courtyards and people perhaps sitting outdoors in front of restaurants, that was a more desirable streetscape then a sea of cars in a parking lot. Given the proximity to the Cal State campus, staff believed that the setback reduction in the front was warranted. An example was the project to the west, even though the building sets back 61 feet, the landscape setback in the front was only 12 feet, so there wasn't a substantial difference in the amount of landscaping. Commissioner Tanner asked about the ten-foot setback on Gerald Ford. He had to assume that the setback would have a walkway. Mr. Drell stated that the actual setback from curb is significantly larger. He said the setback wasn't measured from the curb and asked Mr. Urbina for the actual pedestrian area; Mr. Urbina said 22 feet. Commissioner Tanner asked if there was going to be a small step-up wall or if there would be open access 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1. 2006 .r to those courtyards. Mr. Urbina confirmed that there would be a three-foot high curvilinear screen wall in front of Building K, as well as portions of Buildings H and G. Mr. Drell asked the purpose of the screen wall, then said the question should be directed to the applicant. He asked why have a screen wall in front of a commercial building? Before inviting the applicant forward, Mr. Urbina noted that setbacks increased to as much as 45 feet at the corners of the two main entrances. Upon questioning by Chairperson Lopez, Mr. Urbina pointed out the location of the proposed monument signs. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. BILL SHARON, representing Smith Consulting Architects, 78-000 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 201 in Palm Desert, California 92211, said this was a very unique opportunity on Gerald Ford Drive being along this stretch east of Cook Street where there is a traffic signal. This is a central location. Some of the things they were trying to do is create activity, some action, some things like that happening to the south on the campus property. They wanted to emphasize the pedestrian .r activity that might occur there and also from the other facilities west of them. They were thinking of this as the city center of all Gerald Ford Drive east of Cook and they wanted to create some buildings that celebrate the comer from this point on and that's where they put their tower features as shown in the renderings. The higher two-story office building would sit in the back. One thing they felt very strongly about, and they met with Phil early on and asked his opinion about it and he was in concurrence with them, and that was to try and create some sidewalk activity similar to El Paseo. That's why they were asking for the ten-foot setback as opposed to the larger 30-foot setback. They thought it would be better to take the landscaping around the building in addition to the right-of-way and have a meandering sidewalk, some landscaping, have some outdoor seating areas in front of the restaurants. There would be some low walls, but they would be there to separate more or less the seating area for that particular restaurant. So they could have pedestrian activity pass by and they would have private areas where people could sit and have lunch. That was the overall concept. Commissioner Finerty asked what kind of restaurants he was considering. .r 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1. 2006 Mr. Sharon said currently they were looking at coffee shops and anticipated some casual sit down restaurants, not necessarily full service, but the kind of thing in business areas that are perfect for lunch time. Commissioner Finerty asked if dinner would be served. Mr. Sharon said there could be dinner. That would be up to the future lessee. They didn't know, but would be open to it. From his knowledge of how retail develops, that was a little premature. But as the area develops it could change. Right now they would primarily focus on serving the offices and workers in the area. Commissioner Finerty noted that they could just walk right over and not take their cars. Mr. Sharon concurred. Chairperson Lopez asked if there would be a traffic light at the intersection. Mr. Sharon said yes, and explained that would be one of the main entrances into the center off of Gerald Ford. Chairperson Lopez asked staff about the timing of the traffic light installation. Mr. Joy said the campus developing into that area would predicate the installation of the traffic signal. He wasn't sure about the campus development timing. Chairperson Lopez asked if there would be any other stops along Gerald Ford along this section. Mr. Joy believed there was another traffic signal before Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Drell clarified that there was a signal already approved at the edge of the Taylor Woodrow project that would also be joint access to the apartments and the commercial project to the east or what might be the fire station to the west. Commissioner Tanner asked if the proposed stop light at the corner of Frank Sinatra by the Taylor Woodrow project was down about 300 yards from the entrance to the college. Mr. Drell said that both of these signals were coordinated with entrances. There were two planned entrances to the college on Gerald Ford. This was one of them. They basically bisect Gerald Ford into thirds. The one to the east is at the boundary of the Taylor Woodrow project. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was any concern if the traffic light didn't go in on time. This could become a busy center and a traffic problem 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1. 2006 ..n could develop. Mr. Drell said the applicant was conditioned for half the signal. Given our propensity for putting in those green and red arrows, as long as traffic is light it's actually quicker not to have the signal there. At some point in time it could be put in when that left-turn becomes difficult. This signal would also serve the project to the east. There's an easement to the east. At some point in time if the development traffic levels on Gerald Ford out pace what's going on at the University, and since we would probably be the one paying for the other half of the signal, then we're usually fairly responsive and step up and get it done. Mr. Joy said after looking at the condition, he believed that the signal installation was required as part of the project, so when the project get's built, they would be required to install the signal. It was Public Works Condition No. 4. Chairperson Lopez explained his concern. With the pedestrian sidewalk close to the street, as well as potentially people sitting in sidewalk areas having lunch, car speeds can get high and it was a slow turning right turn and he was concerned about the safety factor for that area. He asked if the speed limit was known for the road, but hoped it would be in the 40's at the highest. Right now people do 55 mph because it was wide open country with nothing to stop them. Mr. Drell indicated that there was a parkway between the sidewalk and any of the public areas 10, 12, 15 feet beyond that. They .r could see that there's a landscape parkway, then the sidewalk, the screen wall and the patios. Hopefully they wouldn't have too many cars skipping the curb. Mr. Sharon pointed out the area that gets down to ten feet (in front of Buildings G, H and a portion of K). He said in front of Building K it starts at ten feet and then widens out. They anticipated most of the restaurants on one side. One area would be taken up by financial institutions, so there wouldn't be people sitting on the outside of that. There could potentially be a restaurant on that side, but it was a much smaller building. So they thought they would be pulled far enough away from the street. What Phil was talking about was the sidewalk is kind of set back and meanders around and then they have the landscaped area out in front. The seating areas were between the landscaped area and the sidewalk. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Joy if the width of the roadway shown on the plans included a right-tum lane adjacent to the curb. Mr. Joy explained that they've had an approved design of that intersection for quite a while and this project was held up to match what was already done on the other side. He couldn't recollect if it included a deceleration lane or not. arlr 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1. 2006 Mr. Sharon didn't recall if there was a decel lane. Chairperson Lopez asked to see a rendering of the north side of the parking structure from Interstate 10 and the height from that side. Mr. Sharon explained that to the top of the trellis was 29 feet; the majority of the height was at 20 feet and then some sections had ups and downs. The mass was at 23.5 feet. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was a deceleration lane on the north side, how far it would intrude into the project and how it would implicate it. Mr. Joy said decel lanes are 12 feet wide. Going back to the site plan, Mr. Drell asked if they could scale the width of the road section curb to curb to the median. His recollection was that the entrance to the east had a deceleration lane and they appeared to line up. Sometimes they have deceleration lanes and rather short distances. Hopefully people wouldn't use it as a third lane. He said it should be indicated on the tract map. Mr. Drell said curb to curb it was 34 feet and looked like three lanes and it is a two- lane road, so it looked like it had a deceleration lane. um Referring to the parking structure, Commissioner Tanner asked how the lights would be filtered so they wouldn't just stand out at night while driving along the interstate. He asked if they would be filtered in some way. He asked if it was correct that the top floor of the parking would be lit. Mr. Sharon said that was correct. They would be required to put in the zero cut off lights so at the property line the lights wouldn't go past there. Away from there at night, they would still see that it is being lit up, but they wouldn't be able to see the poles. Mr. Drell indicated that it would be similar to the conditions at the top of the Westfield parking structures. Any lit lot will be seen from a distance, but there would be no trespass to the back in excess of a quarter of a foot candle, which was about the full moon. They would see a lit lot. If it was a single level lot, they would see a lot with poles. Commissioner Tanner asked if the lights would be on all night. Mr. Drell said no. Commissioner Tanner asked if the lights would be turned off when the center was dormant. Mr. Drell said yes, our ordinance requires for the lights to go off a half hour after closing. Mr. Sharon said one of the things they had working for them was the trellises, so they could put a lot of lights in the trellises and that would help to some degree to shade the lights. He clarified for the 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1. 2006 no Commission that the lights weren't shown on the drawings, only the trellises. There were no other questions for the applicant. 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. Commissioner Campbell stated that she liked the concept. She concurred with staff on the recommendation regarding the front and rear setbacks. She liked the parking structures and recommended to City Council approval for everything recommended by staff, including the monument sign and height. Commissioner Tanner noted that he was opposed to an additional monument sign on a previous case, but in this instance these were needed. He also agreed with the fact that they need a couple of signs going both east and west to identify the entrance. In this case he agreed with the signs and moved for approval. He congratulated them on a job well done. He thought it would be a great project. They are moving quick out there and each design they see seemed to be better and better. He was in favor. .rr Commissioner Tschopp agreed with staffs recommendation and the reasons for the exceptions. He thought the monument signs were justified given how the building sits on the curb of Gerald Ford. He thought the ten-foot setback would actually enhance the area and the project. He was in favor. He also felt the height exceptions were justified by the architecture. Commissioner Finerty concurred. She thought it was a very good use of the area and liked the idea of it being pedestrian friendly and people would be encouraged to walk. The one thing she wanted to be really clear about was the decel lane. They thought there was one, but if it turned out there wasn't one, she asked if they could condition it. Mr. Drell said that if there wasn't one, the project would have to come back for a redesign. It appeared to be there. Mr. Joy confirmed that the drawing showed 34 feet of pavement width. That was two travel lanes and an extra ten-foot lane that would accommodate the decel lane. He confirmed it was a sure thing and they had his word. With that, Commissioner Finerty said she concurred with the other Commissioners and was in favor. Chairperson Lopez also concurred. He thought it was a great project and something they could all be proud of. It was especially nice to have 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1. 2006 something east of Cook Street. He noted there was a motion and asked for a second. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2411, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM 34437, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case Nos. C/Z 06-03 and PP 06-04-BOB SIPOVAC JR., Applicant Per Planning Commission direction on July 18, 2006, presentation of a resolution denying a request for approval of a change of zone from PR-7 to PR-8 and a precise plan of _ design to add five units to the existing 44-unit "Park Village" residential project at 74-360 Magnesia Falls Drive. Mr. Drell informed Commission of a request by the applicant for a continuance so that the project could be redesigned with only one story and reducing the number of units. By continuing it instead of denying it, the public hearing would still have to be renoticed, but he wouldn't have to file another application. He was asking for a continuance of the case to a time uncertain and then staff would renotice the public hearing if and when he came back. If he didn't come back, they could process the denial. Commissioner Finerty said that once the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial, she asked if it was something that would have to be rescinded. Mr. Drell said no. The Commission could just do a different motion. They directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial and in essence would continue action on that to allow him to come back. Until the Commission voted, it wasn't an approved resolution. Commissioner Finerty was concerned because there were a lot of people in attendance that were opposed, and for good reason, and the Commission gave them their word and it was a 5-0 vote to deny it. She thought to go back on their word was wrong. She was not in favor. Mr. Drell said that they could take their action as they saw fit and the applicant could just reapply, as long as he applies for 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1. 2006 a substantially different project. Mr. Erwin said that a similar project could not reapply for one year. Mr. Drell said that if it was three units instead of five and one story instead of two-stories, he would call that a significantly different project. Commissioner Tanner also indicated a reduction in the number of units. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Tanner agreed with Commissioner Finerty. The Commission decided at the last meeting to deny it. Commission concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2412, denying Case Nos. C/Z 06-03 and PP 06-04. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES .r Commissioner Campbell reported that the meeting was informational. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty stated that the meeting was informational. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty indicated that the meeting was cancelled. D. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner reported that the Commission was dark right now, but he saw a rendering of the pool and it looked really good. He said it would be a beautiful addition to the city and he was very excited about it. ..r 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1. 2006 XI. COMMENTS Mr. Drell informed Commission that an amendment of the Hagadone residence in Bighorn would be coming before the Commission. A 13,000 square foot expansion of the pad size was being requested for the addition of a sports court. Since the new maximum total pad size in the zone is 10,000 square feet, a 13,000 square foot expansion was considerable. Therefore, there would be a hearing and this time the noticing would expand to include residents at Ironwood, although they were significantly beyond 300 feet. As he understood it, they were significantly impacted by the project, although the subject of their comments might not be directed to the amendment and other things. The sports court probably wasn't in an area that would impact the current complaints. He thought it would be before them in September/October and there might be a request by the Association to delay the hearing a couple of months. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:16 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: JAMES K Z, Chairp s Palm Des rt Planning Com iss on i hm 17