Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-16 PC Regular Meeting Minutes �'1��� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION . TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 16, 2010 * * * ,� * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * � * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Limont called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Connor Limont, Chair Mari Schmidt, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell Nancy DeLuna Van Tanner Members Absent: None Staff Present: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Dave Erwin, City Attorney Jill Tremblay, Assistant City Attorney Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Senior Management Analyst Page Garner, Senior Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tanner led in the pledge of allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent February 11, 2010 City Council actions. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the January 19, 2010 meeting minutes. _ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the January 19, 2010 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 09-506 — KELLY C. AND BARBARA M. BRUUN AND INDIAN RIDGE COUNTRY CLUB, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment at 598 Elk Clover Circle within Indian Ridge Country Club. B. Case No. PMW 10-17 — DEAN J. SCHUMAN c/o FEIRO ENGINEERING, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment merging Lot 43 with the west half of Lot 44 to accommodate an existing home located at 72-775 Beavertail Street. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, approving the Consent Calendar 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. CUP 08-433 — CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for revocation of an existing conditional use permit for a massage therapy establishment within an existing office suite located at 72-855 Fred Waring Drive. Business Owner: Lawrence M. Andrews; Property Owner: Haven Management. Community Development Director Lauri Aylaian asked City Attorney Dave Erwin to address this issue and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Mr. Erwin explained that this was a revocation hearing on a conditional use permit. The Commission would recall that they did take action on it previously. It was determined after the fact that the issue was raised that they had not given sufficient notice for the prior action. That was why it was back in front of them again. In addition, the City Council at their meeting last Thursday had on their agenda consideration of revocation of the massage establishment permit. The attorney representing the applicant at that point in time accepted the fact that the Council referred the matter to a hearing officer, who would hear the matter and then report back to the Council with regard to that permit. His recommendation and understanding, also with the attorney representing the applicant, was that Mr. Erwin would request that the Planning Commission do the same, which was to refer the matter to a hearing officer, who would be selected by himself and the City Manager. The hearing officer would hear the revocation hearing for the conditional use permit and then provide the Planning Commission with a report for their subsequent action. That was his recommendation and would save them from opening the public hearing at this time. Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, by minute motion, referring revocation of CUP 08-433 to a hearing officer. Chairperson Limont asked for any discussion. Commissioner Schmidt asked if that meant there was no revocation of this particular establishment at this time. Mr. Erwin replied that the conditional use permit had not been revoked. The business is closed and has been closed since they started these processes, but there was no revocation at the present time. That was correct. Commissioner Schmidt said that in essence, the Planning Commission has taken no action on it. Mr. Erwin said that was correct. There were no further questions and Chairperson Limont called for a vote. The motion carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. GPA/CZ 10-18 — CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment from Office Professional to Low Density Residential 0-4 units per acre and a Change of Zone from Office Professional to Residential Estates 40,000 square foot minimum lot size for two parcels located at 77-925 Hidden River Road and 77- 930 Delaware Place. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16. 2010 Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of GPA/ CZ 10-18. Commissioner DeLuna said it was her understanding that it was zoned Residential, rezoned to Office Professional, and now staff wanted it rezoned back to Residential. She asked if this would be a permanent zone change back or if staff anticipated sometime in the future another request to rezone back to Office Professional. Mr. Bagato replied that staff anticipated it to be permanent. Commissioner Tanner asked for confirmation that the residents there approved this decision to go back to Residential. Mr. Bagato said correct; one of the homeowners was in the audience and approached the City about changing it because he is trying to refinance his property and in looking at it, it seemed to make sense to keep it as Residential. Commissioner Schmidt asked if both homes were occupied. Mr. Bagato said the other home to the south of the one on Hidden Valley Road was not occupied and he did contact the homeowner about changing that property as well, because he didn't want to have a spot zoning parcel in between. He received no response, but there is a home there. At one point the property was run down, but had recently been cleaned up. He didn't know if there had been some transition with banks or not, but the owner of record was contacted twice to let them know this was being done to keep it as a home. But otherwise, it wasn't occupied right now from what he could tell. Commissioner Tanner asked if that was the one that sits on Delaware. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it was the southern of the two. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Chairperson Limont asked for and received confirmation that staff hadn't heard from them. Commissioner DeLuna asked if adequate notice had been given. Mr. Bagato said yes. Chairperson Limont o�ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone. MR. ARTURO AVILA said he has lived at the property for 32 years. He wished to continue staying there. He wasn't aware that it was rezoned until he tried to refinance. He brought a copy of the appraisal to the City Council where it shows as Residential. Had it not been for the fact that he contacted the bank and they told him it is zoned Commercial. He didn't remember being notified or he would have been here. So that's when he came before the Planning Commission. He also requested that they waive the fees because there is a fee to revert the rezoning; it is excessive for him 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16 2010 and he also felt he shouldn't have to pay a fee to stay where he's at. Chairperson Limont thanked him and asked if there was anyone else wishing to address the Commission. MS. DIANE GUZMAN, 77-935 Delaware Place, stated that she was present representing Ted and Linda Barnett as well as herself. They were in support of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Office Professional to low density Residential because it would provide for the enjoyment and preservation of the residential neighborhood on Delaware Place behind the road closure. The properiy line outside the road closure would stay Office Professional and be focused on Washington. So they were in support of this action and would recommend it. Chairperson Limont closed the public hearing. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there were any tax consequences from a zone change. Mr. Bagato didn't know. He didn't think there would be; it's still a residential use; the property is legal nonconforming right now. If the house burned down, he couldn't rebuild it as a house. That was why the bank wouldn't refinance it. But he didn't know if it would change his taxes. Mr. Erwin doubted that the rezoning would cause any reappraisal. Commissioner Tanner noted that Mr. Avila mentioned a fee he must pay to have this rezoned back to Residential. He asked if there was a way the City could waive that since he wasn't aware in the beginning that it was rezoned. Mr. Bagato said yes; when Mr. Avila first came to the City they said there was a fee and he wrote a letter to the City Council. They were going to go to City Council first to waive the fee, but because of timing and talking with Ms. Aylaian and the City Attorney, they decided to make it City-initiated, so there was no fee to the applicant. The City initiated it so he didn't have to pay the fee. Commissioner Tanner asked if Mr. Avila understood that now; he said yes. Commissioner Schmidt asked if they were within their rights to rezone a property that the owner might be unaware they were doing so. Mr. Erwin replied that as long as they have given the appropriate notice, which they have in this case, then certainly. If they wish to appear, they may do so. If they don't, then they are free to take whatever action their notice said. Chairperson Limont asked for a motion. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16. 2010 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, approving the findings and recommendation as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2518, recommending to City Council approval of GPA / CZ 10-18, designating and rezoning two Office Professional properties Residential Estates 40,000. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. MISC 10-19 — JUAN CARLOS OCHOA, Applicant Request to modify an existing pad height by two feet for a proposed single family residence of Tract 25296-5 located in the Canyons at Bighorn at 111 Lantana View. Assistant Planner Kevin Swartz reviewed the staff report. He added Condition No. 4 to the draft resolution to read, "The applicant must submit compaction tests for Lot 9 performed by a registered soils engineer." Mr. Swartz recommended approval of Case No. MISC 10-19 with that addition. Commissioner Tanner asked about the elevations of the three lots and the three or four behind them. Mr. Swartz replied that the three were at 749 feet; the others behind were 752, 755 and 758 feet. Commissioner Schmidt asked about Lot 9. Mr. Swartz said it is 750 feet. Lot 8 is 750 feet. Commissioner Tanner asked about the lot next door to the proposed lot. Mr. Swartz confirmed it was at 754 feet. Commissioner Tanner asked if it would interrupt any kind of view to the golf course at all by increasing two feet. Mr. Swartz said no. Commissioner Tanner asked if staff had received any correspondence from the properry owners behind it. Mr. Swartz said no correspondence in favor or opposition had been received. Commissioner DeLuna asked why the owner wanted to raise the lot two feet. Mr. Swartz deferred that question to the applicant. Commissioner Schmidt noticed on the elevation for the proposed home that a couple of the chimneys are already at 20 feet. She thought the drawing they reviewed was already at 752 and asked if he could confirm that. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. It was 18 feet to the highest point of the roof, and then two feet higher for the chimney. He confirmed that chimneys could go higher. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16. 2010 There were no other questions. Chairperson Limont o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. JUAN CARLOS OCHOA, 73626 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, stated that he is the architect for the project. To answer the question regarding the 752, that is actually an existing pad and that is how it is currently. In Mr. Swartz's presentation, he mentioned that Lot 10 is 754 and Lot 8 is 750, so the medium elevation is averaged at 752. Those lots were actually following the slope of the street. So they were really not changing the pads, they were requesting to keep the pads as they are in the field, which is not the same as it was recorded on the plan that was submitted. Regarding chimneys, by code they had to have at least two feet above for fireplaces. Most times chimneys are higher than the height limit. Commissioner Schmidt asked for clarification when he said that the pad exists, Mr. Ochoa was talking about cleared ground, not concrete. Mr. Ochoa said that was correct. Commissioner Schmidt asked if it was presently graded at 752 feet. Mr. Ochoa said that was correct. Chairperson Limont asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. Chairperson Limont asked for Commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Campbetl, approving the findings and recommendation as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2519, approving MISC 10-19, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case Nos. TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3 and ZOA 09-494 — EAGLE 6.5, LLC, c/o TED LENNON, Applicant Per Planning Commission direction, presentation of a resolution denying a tentative tract map with associated CEQA addendum to the SEIR for Stone Eagle, third 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2010 amendment to Development Agreement 02-01 (Stone Eagle Development), and a zoning ordinance amendment to revise the Hillside Planned Residential Zone Ridgeline Map to allow the subdivision of 7.7 acres into six residential lots. Subject property is located west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel at the termination of Old Stone Trail (APN 652-090-002). Mr. Stendell indicated that at the last meeting there was a lengthy discussion and at the conclusion of it, staff was instructed to prepare a resolution of denial. Staff was back with a resolution and he was present to answer any questions. There were no questions. Ms. Aylaian added that also in their packets was a letter from a nearby resident dated the same date as the last meeting. That was a letter that was emailed approximately seven minutes before the meeting started, so staff had not received it and did not distribute it in advance of the last meeting. It was in their packets for information and became a part of the record. Commissioner Schmidt asked if it would accompany the resolution to Council. Ms. Aylaian said yes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, denying the proposed project. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Campbell and Tanner voted no). It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adopting the findings and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2520, denying TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amendment #3, ZOA 09-494 to revise the Hillside Planned Residential Zone Ridgeline Map, and an Addendum to the SEIR. Motion carried 5-0. B. Update regarding short-term rentals in the R-1 zone. Ms. Aylaian indicated that this item and the next (Item C) were both issues that the Planning Commission asked staff to address and come back to them. Staff originally planned to bring both of these issues to the Planning Commission today, but decided to wait after looking at the timing a little bit further. Typically the newspaper will carry stories of upcoming items for consideration the day before or the day of the meeting. Since yesterday was a holiday and City Hall was closed, and today the department was in training for the bulk of the day, they thought it would be more respectful of concerned citizens' comments, which typically come in as soon as they see it in the newspaper, to go ahead and hold the meeting on such short notice. They would still see both of these items, but if their expectations 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2010 were to see them today, staff weighed the pros and cons to make sure they didn't short circuit the opportunity for the public to have input. Chairperson Limont asked if they would be on the next agenda. Ms. Aylaian said yes, they would be. For a particular report and details on this item, Mr. Bagato would provide information. Mr. Bagato stated that based on the last discussion on January 19 and trying to figure out the zoning issues related to gated communities versus non-gated and which ones are zoned R-1 and which ones aren't, staff looked at an alternative approach. Through our TOT licensing requirements they could state in there that gated communities may be allowed to have short-term rentals and that basically eliminates having to deal with zones of communities. He talked to the City of Indian Wells and they just state in their business license that it's allowed if they have approval by their communities and they just need to get a business license. Some of the other cities he talked to, they were actually just out trying to enforce the TOT side. They were trying to get the revenue from them, they were not prohibiting them. From staff's standpoint, given the concerns they've had in the R-1 zone, this would prohibit them in the R-1 zones, basically non-gated communities, and then in gated communities the ones that want to allow them can still have them. Commissioner Schmidt said she still had a concern. She asked if it was CC&R's that govern the allowance of a short-term rental someplace, whether it was gated or not. Her fear was that they were making a law that is so defined that there might be communities that are not gated that also allow short-term rentals. But she wasn't sure what vehicle allowed it. Was it CC&R's or bylaws? Mr. Erwin explained that CC&R's are separate from our ordinances. We do not enforce CC&R's. They are private contractual . rights between the individuals so that our zoning is totally separate and apart. As an accommodation on most of the places that have CC&R's, we try to suggest that people get the approval of their homeowner's association before going through the processes with the City so there isn't a conflict there, but our ordinances, once approved and passed, exist and will be enforced by the City regardless of CC&R's. CC&R's, however, even though we might permit them in gated communities, the CC&R's being private contractual rights may say they can't have them in the gated community. That's something we don't even really look into; that's there and it's their regulation and we don't try to enforce it, we let them enforce that. Commissioner Schmidt asked if it would be prudent to have language in whatever this new short-term rental would be that speaks to exclusions to our ordinance, which would be CC&R's. She was just worried that they 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16. 2010 were making a law that was covering something they really didn't know. Mr. Erwin said they were making a law that covers everything but gated communities. That's what they were really talking about, and there are areas that have CC&R's that may impact that that are not gated. Commissioner Schmidt said that was her point. Mr. Erwin said if they provide that as an exception, from his perspective that would require them as a staff to look at our ordinance, see if they are violating that, then look at the CC&R's and see if they are violating that, and in effect, potentially enforcing their CC&R's or not enforcing, or saying our ordinance is subordinate to the CC&R's, and he wasn't sure they wanted to go there in that process. It would also require them to look at CC&R's, and he knew of examples in the city where we have CC&R's that are not enforced and yet the CC&R's might prohibit something like that and yet we allow it. He thought they were going to run into a real enforcement problem if they start trying to mold our ordinance into the CC&R's and deal with it because there are differences, and we have a number of places that have CC&R's here in the city that are not gated. Commissioner Schmidt said that was her concern. By using the words "gated communities" they are assuming that all gated communities speak to it. Mr. Erwin said another way to look at it, which they haven't really looked at yet, is to talk about private streets. Almost all gated communities have private streets as opposed to the public streets, which might be another way to look at it, in effect prohibiting them with regard to public streets. If it's a gated community, the streets are going to be private. Commissioner Campbell stated that the police have no jurisdiction on that because she called the police one time because the neighbors were parking the wrong way, which is not correct, and they said they couldn't do anything to those people for being parked the wrong way. Mr. Erwin said before he gave them a final answer he would want to think about the CC&R issue a little more, but he was a little concerned that they may be getting into a whole bunch of things that are different because a lot of the CC&R's will have a variety of restrictions in them. Some will be restrictive in one area, some in another; some are a lot older than others and they might get some elements of change in that as well. They could certainly look at it and think about it a little bit more, but he was a little concerned about tying it to the CC&R's. From a land use side, Mr. Bagato said the thought right now was that in the R-1 zone they are required to have a conditional use permit, so most of those zones were going to be non- gated. They could identify only three or four that are gated and zoned R-1 as well. So R-1 zones are already treated differently, and if these people have CC&R's saying they can have short-term rentals, they are supposed to have a conditional use permit and they may not. Again, the concern is that there are nine cases out there that we know are active�y doing short- term rentals in the R-1 zone, and since the ordinance was adopted in 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16. 2010 2000, only two out of the five applicants that applied were approved. And the last comment from both the Planning Commission and City Council was this was not compatible in single-family zones, which typically is identified as the R-1 non-gated communities because some of the gated communities, although they are still single family, they tend to be secondary homes and this is also where they have higher end condominiums that are used as rentals even by the HOA. For example, The Falls came to mind. The HOA actually has the Resort Management Company lease these properties for them. So the thought process was dealing with R-1 because they are kind of treated differently. Commissioner Schmidt noted that they should be careful with the language because they might be restricting their intent and not covering the rest of the city; that was her point. So when they said gated communities, she thought of one segment. They were talking R-1, which is a whole other one. In some of the R-1 areas, those are public streets, so she didn't know that that would work. She agreed that they must be careful. Chairperson Limont asked if it would be proper to ask staff to work in conjunction with counsel before the rough draft comes back. Mr. Erwin said certainly. Chairperson Limont said if they needed to have a study period, they would, and they could ask questions and try to get this straightened out. Action: None. C. Informational report regarding recommended changes to the Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) Zone Ordinance. Mr. Stendell explained that at the January 19 meeting they had a lengthy discussion about the Hillside Planned Residential zone. As Ms. Aylaian discussed earlier, staff would be back with a proposed draft at the next meeting. A few minor changes would be made which staff believed would accomplish the goal as expressed by the Planning Commission at their last meeting. Staff would also propose taking this opportunity through the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to clean up any identified mistakes by staff, primarily in the ridgeline map, which they had already identified in a few areas that there are some known mistakes out there. So staff would take a stab at them and would clean up some of that at the same time. He said staff would be back at the next meeting for the review by the Planning Commission. He asked if there were any questions. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16� 2010 Commissioner Schmidt asked if Mr. Stendell was thinking about adding rock outcroppings in definitions, putting more prominence to it. Mr. Stendell said absolutely. A definition of outcropping and terms would be added. Staff would come back with a simple version as was discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting. As far as correcting the ridgeline, Commissioner Schmidt asked if the misplacements would be dealt with. Mr. Stendell said staff would like to. From a staff perspective, they have a city-initiated Zoning Ordinance Amendment and this would be an appropriate time to take a look at anything within the Hillside Planned Residential zone that needs to be looked at. Commissioner Schmidt noted that as Ms. Aylaian said, most of them are very definitely ridgelines and now with a definition of outcroppings, not necessarily being a ridgeline but having its own designation, she thought staff probably should take the first crack at revising whatever that map is, but if they need it surveyed, was it possible to have questionable ones done? Mr. Stendell said he has looked at a couple of remaining parcels that are at the very bottom, which seem to be where the inconsistencies occur. If it got to a point where staff was uncomfortable, it was very nice working with a professional engineer on the previous case because they had not only staff's opinion, but the opinion of a registered engineer. So if they ever get to a point where staff thinks it is needed, but he thought they had a good enough idea to take a stab at it. The nice thing about our ordinance is that it is ever changing and if something was found later, they could always revisit it at that time. There were certain instances out there where there is a ridgeline drawn on top of a dirt road. So there are some very obvious ones out there. Commissioner Schmidt noted that a road can be along a ridgeline. She knew of several. Commissioner DeLuna stated that she went through the internet and pulled off about five different cities throughout the country or throughout the west coast, some as close as Apple Valley, some as far as Laramie Wyoming, but they deal specifically and have ordinances that deal with rock outcroppings and ridgelines and some of the terminology might help, so she would give that information to the Planning Department staff tonight to just refer to it to help. Mr. Stendell thanked her. Action: Receive and file. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell provided an update. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16s 2010 B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Chairperson Limont reviewed their last meeting's discussion items. C. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner reported that there was no meeting. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Schmidt said their next meeting would be Monday. XI. COMMENTS A. Ms. Aylaian indicated that an email was sent out to save dates. She could confirm a Housing Tour of the city's affordable housing developments. It was a joint tour. The City Council takes that tour every year with the Housing Commission. She thought it was an interesting view of different types of multi-family developments within the city and encouraged any and all Planning Commissioners to attend and to please RSVP to Tonya. She believed that three Commissioners had already responded. Anyone else who could attend, it would be from 10:00 a.m. until noon on March 18 so a spot on the bus could be reserved. It was pretty informative from staff's standpoint. They could see things from a senior duplex to a single-family residence when they have seven units per acre, as opposed to 26 per acre like we have at the Palma Village Apartments. It gives them an idea of what can be done and some of the issues for types of projects that could be coming forward in the future. The other save the date item was for a joint public hearing meeting with the City Council and the Planning Commission. The time was firmed up for 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 24. They would be looking at the aquatic center. Because the time schedule on this project is rather aggressive, they were trying to move it forward and they decided that the most efficient way to do that would be hold a joint meeting with the City Council and Planning Commission so that both parties could review and take action on the project and the environmental documentation associated with the project. So please put that in their calendars for 4:00 p.m.; it would be noticed and they would have more information and an agenda in advance of that meeting. 13 MINUTES pALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16. 2010 Along the same line, Ms. Aylaian contacted both the outgoing chair and incoming chair. As a way of facilitating the aquatic center project, they identified the need to have two planning commissioners, a subcommittee, sit on a steering committee that has been developed for the aquatic center. Since they didn't have a meeting; she didn't have the opportunity to bring it before the whole Commission and ask, but did contact the outgoing chair, who then referred her to the incoming chair, and they identified that Vice Chair Schmidt and Chair Limont would both serve on that steering committee. The steering committee includes staff and two Council members on it as well. She believed that there was also a Parks & Recreation member on it. They would be meeting several times between now and our meeting on the 24th and would hopefully be able to keep in front of the steering committee the concerns that the Planning Commission will be dealing with and looking for when it comes to the whole group. In the event that Chair Limont or Vice Chair Schmidt are unable to attend the aquatic center meetings, Commissioner Tanner volunteered to fill in if available. Commissioner Schmidt asked if Chair Limont wanted to say anything about today's meeting. Chair Limont said no, not just yet. It was a good meeting and was a great design. She thought everybody had worked really hard and this one actually has great potential of moving forward. B. Ms. Aylaian explained that BB&K distributed a memorandum regarding an update to the Ralph M. Brown Act on open meetings. There were a couple of technical changes that were made and staff woutd be distributing it for their information. C. Ms. Aylaian noted that there were no public hearing items scheduled for March 2 and that meeting would be canceled. The next meeting would be March 16. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion, adjourning the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. ,_----- �' '` LAURI AY�AIAN, Secretary AT ST: � M. CONNOR LIMONT, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission 14