Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1121 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY – NOVEMBER 21, 2006 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chair Cindy Finerty, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell Van Tanner Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Steve Smith, Planning Manager Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Associate Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Janine Judy, Sr. Office Assistant IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the October 17, 2006 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the October 17, 2006 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Smith summarized pertinent October 31, and November 16, 2006 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Smith noted a correction to the agenda. The address for Item D should reflect 77-185 California. A. Case No. PMW 06-21 - CAHUILLA FALLS, LLC and BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to add Parcel “D” to Lot 22 of Tract 25296-7 within Bighorn, also known as 1017 Cahuilla Falls. B. Case No. PMW 06-07 - SHARON E. LASKIN AND D.R. HORTON, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between 42-380 Warner Trail and the adjoining lot(s). C. Case No. PMW 06-08 -BERTRAM AND BETTY R. POLOW, D.R. HORTON, INC., AND PDCC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between 43635 Elkhorn and the adjoining lot(s). D. Case No. PMW 06-09 - DUANE YOESEL/THE YOESEL FAMILY TRUST AND D.R. HORTON, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between 77-185 California and the adjoining lot(s). 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 E. Case No. PMW 06-10 - RICHARD AND STELLA FRENCH, AND D.R. HORTON, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between 77-255 California Drive and the adjoining lot(s). F. Case No. PMW 06-11 KATHLEEN O'BRIEN AND D.R. HORTON, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between 42-245 Kansas and the adjoining lot(s). G. Case No. PMW 06-12 - BEACH AND LESLIE STANTON, AND D.R. HORTON, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between 43-620 Elkhorn Trail and the adjoining lot(s). H. Case No. PMW 06-13 - JAMES AND DEE DEE BLAIR, TRUSTEES, AND D.R. HORTON, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between 76-733 Kentucky Avenue and the adjoining lot(s). I. Case No. PMW 06-14 - ARNOLD KIRSCHENBAUM and D.R. HORTON, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between 43-510 Tennessee Avenue and the adjoining lot(s). J. Case No. PP 04-25 - PEGGY AMES, Applicant Request for approval of a second one-year time extension for a precise plan of design allowing the construction of a 19,985 square foot office/warehouse building located at 77-621 Spyder Circle. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the Consent Calendar as amended by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. PP 06-11 - STUDIO E ARCHITECTS, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 2,770 square foot World Savings Bank at 73-051 Highway 111, APN 627-192-043. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. Commissioner Campbell stated that since there would be only one access to the parking off Hwy 111, would that have it's own right turn lane on the corner. Mr. Smith indicated that it would be a right in and a right out. Commissioner Tschopp asked how far down from the intersection would the turn in be. Mr. Smith indicated that it would be about 90 feet and would be located where the easterly Shell Station exit was. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the traffic engineer felt that this was safe. Mr. Smith indicated that it was a lesser of three evils. There were no other questions and Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. Mr. Smith indicated to Mr. Sheehan who arrived late, they did go through the staff report and explained the difference of opinion with Staff versus the Architecture Review Commission, (ARC). 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 Mr. John Sheehan, Studio E Architects, 2411 Second Avenue, San Diego thanked the Chairperson for continuing the item since he was stuck in traffic and thanked the Commission for their patience. Mr. Sheehan stated that he had been before the ARC on three occasions and each time he was invited back to make some adjustments to the scheme. On the last visit, as the report states he did receive ARC’s approval. In the eyes of our client, there have been a series of fairly significant adjustments made to the building; particularly with colors, materials and overall building heights. In our minds, we have been trying to work with the ARC to a successful resolution of their issues. He stated that seeing the report for the first time this morning he was not aware that Staff had issues with the design scheme. Their landscape architect has been working with the City’s landscape specialist to come to a successful completion of the landscape scheme. Mr. Sheehan indicated the item in the packet was the latest iteration of what they were led to believe was something that met with the City’s approval and stated he would be happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the architecture design proposed is something that World Savings uses as a theme for their buildings. Mr. Sheehan stated that World Savings has since the mid 70s adopted a program for their banks that are markedly similar. When you step inside their branch, everything is very prescribed. What they have done as part of their business model is to make each and every branch different on the outside. They have a long-standing history of hiring architects to design their branches all across the country, which they deem as doing interesting work. This is not a franchise design. Each one of their banks is intended to be site specific. Commissioner Tanner stated that if this structure was supposed to be site specific then why was it so out in left field with the City of Palm Desert. He asked if the architects visited the City and did they really think that this would be something that the residents would like to see going up 74 and east on 111. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 Mr. Sheehan stated that he was the architect responsible, and has been here several times for business and vacation. They came and met with Mr. Smith before they put pencil to paper because they knew it was a sensitive site and walked through what the City’s expectations might be; was it in a particular style district, was it’s proximity to El Paseo important in any way as it relates to the building’s appearance and style, did it have to fit into some kind of character. We knew it was a landmark site and it is obviously a very significant and important corner and obviously that is why the bank chose it for their site. We would like to flatter ourselves thinking they chose us because they were looking for something interesting and different. We make no apologies about it. It is decidedly contemporary and it is perhaps more influenced by mid-century modern proto-types that one might see in Palm Springs and less so by the more Spanish inspired, colonial inspired architecture that you find on El Paseo. But again, we met with the City and asked all those questions because we were prepared to design within the confines of the City’s requirements and we were told there wasn’t anything specific to respond to. Commissioner Lopez asked if the large brown area that has the World Savings name on it was vertical or an angle and what was the height. Mr. Sheehan responded that it was vertical and the height was about 11 feet below what would be permitted there and has been lowered once. The reasons for the height are largely three-fold. One the bank wanted to have prominence and realized that it was only necessary to have a one story building there, but they wanted as tall a one story that seemed legitimate. Second of all, their banking floors are of a scale and size that deemed a certain ceiling height so that drove the height up; and then added to the ceiling height, was the necessity and the desire for mechanical equipment screening. Those things all added together resulted in the height of the building. Commissioner Campbell stated that she liked modern designs, but even before she read the Staff Report she reviewed the picture and didn’t like it. She stated that it didn’t have any lines and looked like a big box that was top heavy. She stated that she liked windows, glass and mirrors but didn’t think that piece of architecture was right for that corner. There were no other questions for the applicant. Commissioner Lopez 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 stated that the recommendation from Staff was to continue this item until December 19, 2006. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. Chairperson Lopez indicated the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Hargreaves, City Attorney, if this was something that she chose to abstain from was it proper to offer her comments. Mr. Hargreaves stated that since she would soon be elevated to the Council and this item would be forwarded to the Council, she should abstain and not offer any comments. Commissioner Tschopp stated that it meets the code and the requirements of that area, however the architecture is good for mid-century modern contemporary but we are dealing with a very prominent corner and this building stands out. It’s not really a part of Palm Desert and stands alone as designed. He stated that he didn’t like the architecture and the perforated aluminum shading fins. Based on the architecture he would not be in favor of this building as presented. He stated that it doesn’t fit into the City on this corner and felt that this wouldn’t do the City justice. Commissioner Tanner concurred and stated that this doesn’t belong on the entryway to Palm Desert and going up Highway 74. If you look in the neighborhoods it should blend and shouldn’t stick out like a sore thumb. The ARC reviewed this design and it met their requirements, but not from a planning standpoint. He stated that he truly did not like the architecture at all and asked Mr. Sheehan to change it. Commissioner Campbell stated that she already made her comments earlier and stated that Staff was reviewing the landscape to breakup the lines on the building, but did not feel that it would be enough to hide the building. Commissioner Lopez stated that he liked the idea of this unique building as it pertains to the concept of what World Bank does with their architectural themes, but he wasn’t excited about where it was located. For instance, the World Bank over on Washington, a very unique looking building, fits into what is in that particular area and that is what makes it unique as well very 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 visible. Here it is a little over the edge on a corner that is the main thoroughfare for our city. I would tend to agree that the architecture would not be in the right location. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner to continue this item to December 19, 2006. Motion carried 4-0-1-0, with Commissioner Finerty abstaining. B. Case No. PP 06-12 - ADAMS / BERARDO, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow the construction of a three-unit apartment complex located at 74- 455 Driftwood Drive. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. Commissioner Campbell stated that there were three garages. Two of the garages have two cars and the other garage has only one car. Mr. Stendell clarified that there was a one-car garage for Unit B and the applicant was only required to have three covered spaces, but would be providing five (5); with the one lone space being outside, which is allotted for Unit B. He is in essence getting two spaces, however he doesn't get the last covered one. There were no other questions and Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. RUDOLFO LIZARDO, 748 Village Way #8 in Palm Desert, the owner representative, stated that he was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed application. MR. PERRY HYDE, 74-464 Candlewood, adjacent property owner, stated that he wasn’t opposed to the complex. However, he did have concerns about privacy. He stated that there is currently an existing wall, which is five (5) feet in height and that his, home has three sliders and basically open to the back. He felt that he would be living in a fish bowl and asked that the wall be raised. Mr. Stendell stated 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 that the applicant’s plan calls for a six (6) foot wall and suggested six (6) feet on one side and five (5) feet on the other. Code does not require a six (6) foot wall. If the applicant does not want to increase the wall, then staff wouldn't be recommending that. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 Chairperson Lopez indicated the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell felt that the apartment complex would be an asset to the area and liked the architecture. The floor plan was very nice for such a small area and stated that she approved of the project. Commissioner Tschopp concurred with Staff’s recommendation. He felt the design was consistent and meets all the development standards and would improve the neighborhood. He suggested that the applicant meet with the adjacent property owner to see if the two of them could work something out regarding the height of the wall. Commissioner Tanner stated that he would also like to see the applicant work with the existing neighbor to either increase the height of the wall or introduce some landscaping that could create a barrier without increasing the size of the wall and fulfill the neighbor's concerns. He concurred that this was a great addition and indicated he was in favor. Commissioner Lopez concurred that it was a very nice project and suggested that the applicant and the surrounding neighbors work together in a joint effort to mitigate the situation. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Finerty asked if the motion included working with the homeowner. She wanted clarification because she heard three commissioners say they would like to see the applicant work with the adjacent property owner, but when Commissioner Campbell made the motion she did include that. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Smith if we could add that condition. Mr. Smith indicated that he would like it to be more specific. Commissioner Finerty stated that since they haven’t measured the wall, depending on where the grading is from one side of the yard, it could actually be a lower wall. She asked if they knew that it wasn't actually five (5) feet now. Mr. Smith indicated that it was five (5) feet. Commissioner Finerty 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 asked if the wall was increased to six (6) feet, would there be an issue with the structural integrity of the existing wall to add another block or two. Mr. Smith stated that was correct. Commissioner Tanner asked if this was a block wall or wood on Candlewood. Mr. Smith indicated that it was block. Commissioner Campbell indicated that her motion stands as is, if it meets code at five (5) feet tall. Commissioner Tschopp stated that if it meets code then it would be hard for us to require that they make it taller. His attempt was to encourage the applicant to meet with the neighbor and perhaps the two of them could come to some resolution on jointly raising the wall and if not, possibly coming to some agreement via shrubbery growth or trees. Commissioner Finerty stated that at a minimum, they could require that a number of trees be planted. Commissioner Lopez indicated that the motion should state that the wall remain at its present height with sufficient shrubbery to be planted to add height to the wall and meet the goal of privacy on both sides. Commissioner Campbell asked if they should go ahead and requires that the developer put shrubbery on his side, not the neighbor’s side. Commissioner Finerty stated that a condition would then be added. Commissioner Campbell indicated her desire to add shrubbery to the motion. Mr. Smith indicated that he motion should read that the applicant shall add shrub material along the south (rear) property wall to increase the effective height to six (6) feet high. Chairperson Lopez noted that there was a motion on the floor and a second and called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff, with the condition that the applicant shall add shrub material along the south (rear) property wall to increase the effective height to six (6) feet high. Motion carried 5-0. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2425, approving Case No. PP 06-12, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. PP/CUP 06-09 (Previously PP/CUP 04-10) - TIM DiTOMASO, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design and a conditional use permit to allow the construction of three buildings, two with drive-thru restaurants, totaling 11,400 square feet located at 75-096 Gerald Ford Drive (APN 653- 690-017 and 653-690-018). Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, and requested deletion of Condition No. 11 regarding the bus shelter based on conversation with applicant and Ms. Frankie Riddle. There were no questions and Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. FRANK URRITIA, Urritia Architects, 65 Luring Drive, Palm Springs, felt that Staff did a great job presenting their project with highlights of the site plan and the design. He stated that he would answer any questions. Mr. Urritia stated he had a question about Condition 13 and asked for clarification. The condition stated that they would have to provide a six (6) foot sidewalk on Gerald Ford Drive. For the record he wanted it to be known that one already exists there and wanted to make sure that he wasn’t being asked to remove that one and put in a new one. Mr. Smith indicated that they would not have to provide one. Commissioner Finerty asked if they had any idea what restaurants would be going in. Mr. Urritia stated that Building A was anticipated to be a Subway and the other building would be a Goody Cafe. Commissioner Campbell asked if the Goody's Cafe was a drive-thru. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 Mr. Urritia indicated that was correct and stated that it was like a diner. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the Goody's drive-thru was something new in the development process. Mr. Urritia stated that was correct and indicated that there are currently two Goody’s drive-thru restaurants in the desert. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed application. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty was pleased to see a great job done on the architecture, as well as complying with the freeway overlay zone, providing all of the open space and complimented them on a job well done. She moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell concurred that the architecture was outstanding and seconded the motion. Commissioner Tschopp concurred with Staff's recommendation and the motion. Commissioner Tanner concurred. 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. 2426, approving Case No. PP/CUP 06-09. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 A. Case Nos. TT 33935 and TT 34391 Amendment - TOLL BROTHERS, INC., Applicant Presentation of a resolution denying a request for approval to amend Community Development Condition No. 7 of Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2356 and 2379 to increase the maximum height for homes from 18 feet to 21 feet 8 inches for two tentative tract maps with a combined total of 64 single- family lots located on the east and west sides of Shepherd Lane 2,100 feet north of Frank Sinatra Drive. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Mr. Smith stated that the resolution was prepared pursuant to the Commission’s direction at the last meeting. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving of resolution as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2427, denying Case No. TT 33935 and TT 34391 Amendment. Motion carried 5-0. B. Request for Direction for a Hillside Ordinance Amendment Mr. Smith stated that Council has in a defacto fashion initiated this ordinance amendment at its meeting last week. The direction was that we present a draft of that ordinance when the home in Bighorn returns to the meeting of December 14, 2006. Council would not be able to act on it, but they would give us some direction. In a rather convoluted fashion we would then bring it back to the Planning Commission in January and your recommendation would go back to the Council for action. Mr. Smith indicated that the issues with the Council were relative to increasing the notice to neighbors on visually sensitive lots and looking at having an architectural review process of homes on currently created lots, which are not visually sensitive. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 Commissioner Tanner asked if it had anything to do with the lot size and house size on that hillside area. Mr. Smith stated that their intention is that where we have existing pads we would be looking at homes consistent with other residential standards, which are typically at 35% coverage; and occasionally through the Architectural Review process they can get higher than 35%. If that ordinance progresses, those homes would go through a similar process. Commissioner Tanner stated that one of the issues that we had during this process was that Commissioner Finerty had concerns about making conditionals on excess of 4,000 square feet on a lot. It doesn’t make sense that we have a hillside ordinance if you have a 35,000 square foot lot, we have to make an exception to the ordinance if there is a 5,000 square foot home. He asked if that would be part of the hillside resolution. Mr. Smith indicated that it is Staff’s intention to present that as part of the solution; to recognize lots that have been previously created and then allow homes consistent with residential standards, relative to coverage on those lots. If they come in with a home that is at 55%, then that would be through the exception process. However if they come in with a 35% or 37% coverage home on a 32,000 square foot lot, and it’s not on a visually sensitive lot, it would go through the Architectural Review process. Commissioner Tanner asked if they needed anything from the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith stated that this was informational and that as part of the action last week at the Council meeting they effectively initiated that zone change. He stated that the next meeting would be held December 14, 2006. C. Discussion of Reversal of Staff Recommendations and Procedures for Preparation of New Resolution Mr. Smith stated that Staff Recommendations regarding the Hagadone home differed from the conditions. In discussions with the City Attorney’s office, it was felt that these situations could be avoided on cases where it directs us to prepare a resolution and then leave those hearings open. Since it’s not over until an actual vote is taken, by leaving it open the Chair can decide to hear testimony at the next meeting if warranted. Commissioner Campbell asked if that was because the Commission had never done that previously. Mr. Smith stated that typically we close the 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 public hearing and bring it back as a miscellaneous item, but frankly nothing prevents a Commissioner from changing their mind for the two-week period. Commissioner Lopez asked if there was a requirement to notice the public that this particular item on the agenda would be a public hearing verses a miscellaneous item. Mr. Smith stated that was correct and the action at the first meeting would be to continue it to a date certain to allow Staff to prepare a resolution and it would appear as a public hearing. Commissioner Tschopp stated he had asked that this item be placed on the agenda and had the Chairman’s permission to do so. He felt this was a good resolution of the problem and that his concern was that all interested parties or even the applicant wasn’t being notified adequately that the item wasn’t really closed; that we got procedural approval of a verbal resolution, but we hadn’t closed it again. I think it is good way to handle this in the future as long as we let all interested parties know that it will be open until that particular hearing. Commissioner Lopez asked if anything had to be done internally on the procedures that must occur or was this just a change in the item procedures and process. Mr. Smith indicated that was correct and that it would be up to the Chairman to enact it and relate that to staff. Commissioner Tschopp stated that he was comfortable with that. He felt that they needed to make sure that all addressed parties were aware of that procedure. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that the Committee was looking at giving Council a choice of three pieces to purchase from the exhibit on El Paseo. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting was informational. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty stated that the October 16, 2006 had been canceled and the next meeting would be November 20, 2006. D. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner reported that there was discussion for a new park and were reviewing plans for a 60,000 to 70,000 square foot facility for programs with indoor activities. He stated that the committee was looking to the needs of the residents of the City. XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Lopez stated that the meeting on December 5, 2006 would be dark. The next meeting would be December 19, 2006. Mr. Smith thanked Commissioner Finerty for her years of service on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Campbell congratulated Commissioner Finerty. Commissioner Lopez stated to Commissioner Finerty that it has been an honor, offered his congratulations and wished her the best of luck in her new adventure. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. STEPHEN R. SMITH, Acting Secretary ATTEST: 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2006 JAMES K. LOPEZ, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /jj 20