Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1206 MIIVCII'ESS PALM DESERT PLANNING CCMMISSICN MEE IM TUESDAY - DDCRfflIIt 6, 1988 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CFUV43ER 73-510 FRED WARIING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER ` Chairman Erwood called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLBGIANCE Comnissioner Downs led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Rick Erwood, Chairman Bob Downs Faith Ladlow Jim Richards Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Kandy Allen Dick Folkers %no Phil Drell Steve Smith Catherine Sass Phil Joy Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUI S: Consideration for approval the November 15, 1988 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIC N Mr. Diaz explained that the only council meeting held since the last planning commission meeting was a reorganization meeting and S. Ray Wilson is now the mayor. Commissioner Richards asked about the joint meeting and Mr. Diaz indicated that a specific time has not been set, but would probably be in January, and the city manager's office felt there would be no problem to the commission's recommendation of conducting the joint meeting before the regular city council meeting. r.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CX rT ISSIM DE)MU R 6, 1988 VI. OWSENT CALENDAR None. VII. PUBLIC BEARINGS A. Cknti need Case No. CUP 88-11 - C ERYL DAMS HELM, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a restaurant with liquor license to occupy 6,800 square feet of space within a commercial building at the southeast corner of Cook Street and Country Club Drive. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and indicated that staff's main unaddressed concern was the noise impact. He stated that no rigorous accoustical study was done and oommission must determine if the noise can be mitigated. He informed conmission that staff received petitions signed by property owners in opposition of the restaurant with 432 signatures. Mr. Drell indicated that both a resolution of approval and denial were included for commission's consideration. Staff felt that without the accoustical study, commission could not make the findings necessary to support a recommendation of approval. Staff also noted that the commission could instruct the applicant to provide an accoustical study, but if there were other factors that could not be met, then a denial would be appropriate. Chairman Erwood opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the c c mmission. MR. MIFF HELM stated that the material submitted demonstrates that the project would not have a significant impact on the area and that the only concern is the noise. He indicated that they planned to spend in excess of $1 million in improvements and felt this would be a quality run operation. Mr. Helm stated that some information on noise was in the packet and asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Richards felt that the consultant did a good job in addressing the applicant's problems. Co nLissioner Richards asked if Mr. Helm received any encouragement from the city or staff to embark on this project. Mr. Helm replied no. Ccu mmi.ssioner Richards felt that the applicant should have made more of an effort to resolve neighborhood concerns before submitting an application of this nature 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CU44ISSICN DECE BER 6, 1988 in light of the tremendous amount of opposition that had been expressed by adjacent neighbors. Mr. Helm stated that it was impossible to meet with the Lakes homeowners and they have not had the facts submitted to them. He indicated that he had requested to be present at the homeowners meeting and was denied. He stated that they had never had this much opposition on a project before, but did not feel that this was the prevailing attitude. He noted that he had talked to some homeowners in the Lakes who were not against the project but they would not come forward or put it in writing. Commissioner Richards informed Mr. Helm that when the Lakes development was approved, this building was designed for as a single- purpose office building, which did not mean that it couldn't be changed, but any change in use would set the stage for future problems. He noted that they were asking for residents to go from living next to an office building to a restaurant which was bound to create many problems. Mr. Helm stated that he did not believe with the PC-2 code that this was a discretionary item and he felt that if the facts were �.r presented, the project was feasible. He also felt that any problems could be mitigated. Chairman Erwood asked if his interpretation of the noise mitigation was correct, that they were suggesting creating noise to mask the noise of the restaurant. Mr. Helm replied that this was correct; Country Club is a major artery and water sounds would not be a negative addition. Mr. Helm stated that this is a predetermined use for this building; it was originally zoned PC-2 and present zoning is PC-2. He felt an overall consideration should be given to the project. Commissioner Richards requested staff to review the uses allowed in the PC-2 zone. Mr. Drell did so and provided information on the background of the property; he stated that when a significant change is requested a public hearing is held and an approved use in the zone is subject to a conditional use permit and precise plan. Mr. Drell also stated that when a conditional use permit is approved, the finding has to be made that the use will be compatible with the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Drell stated that it was not the intent of PC-2 to be exclusively office uses. 3 r.r M INUMS PAIM DESERT PLAMIW, CXMK MIGN DDCEMER 6, 1988 ri Commissioner Richards stated that when a use is brought before them, the hearing process is the proper procedure for them to follow. This site was designated for an office building and when people moved into those homes they knew this was an office building, but the owners of the ten hones near the project probably felt that Sunrise would be their forever and they would be the ones most effected. The fact that they did not know about a restaurant is a problem. The property was designed to be used as an office building and has been used as an office building. Mr. Helm stated that he did not think that made sense based on zoning context of what can be allowed. Clarification was provided by Commissioner Downs that Commissioner Richards stated that the property is already developed as an office and should not be changed. Mr. Helm disagreed and felt that this was a misrepresentation because the zoning clearly states that other uses are allowed. He read for the record a section from the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance regarding planned commercial zoning and uses. f Commissioner Richards clarified that the zone says it is possible. Changing the use of property that has existed next to adjoining neighbors is difficult and restaurant approvals are probably the toughest uses to receive approval in any location. He indicated that the material was well outlined, but that would not change the fact that problems would occur and affect the enjoyment of the neighborhood that they used to have when an office was there. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. MR. SANDY SAXTON stated that he did not feel they were stupid when they proposed the restaurant and felt that the project was appropriate with the mitigation measures. He did not wish to be the villian and indicated that at their last hearing many fears were expressed and he felt that they had been solved. He felt that the people did not have any idea of the type of restaurant that was being proposed, but after the discussion they went from being totally negative to saying it might be possible to mitigate their concerns and that the project could became a positive entity in the conrunity. He stated that they had addressed a lot of these issues except noise. They talked to some people on noise and Mr. Saxton personally came up with the idea of the water element. The amount of noise from the highway 4 MINUMS PALM DESERT PLAMIIM O"USSICN DEC04ER 6, 1988 �r means that only some small mitigation needs to be done. They reached the conclusion that noise is not as big a factor and with the water element car doors slamming and voices would disappear. He stated that they have a 20-year history and nun a very good company and felt that they would be compatible with the neighborhood. Chairman Erwood stated that in response to earlier comments, the applicants must understand that from a position of being in a body that decides to what is done to a piece of property, they have to visualize a worst case scenario and while the applicant might nun a high class operation, the commission must be assured there won't be a worst case scenario; no odors or noise. He explained the situation with the Lucky's center at Monterey and Country Club and the adjacent neighbors, noting that their zoning for the shopping center had always been there and people knew that when they bought their property and compromises were made on both sides. All the commission had on the noise is that someone thinks that if a water feature is added, it will block out noise of people talking in the parking lot and the opening and closing of doors. He stated that he was not satisfied with that and felt that some proof was needed to prove it will work to assure the neighbors that they will not be effected by noise. The commission could exercise its duties now, or if the �.. project were allowed to proceed and the waterfall effect did not work, the conditional use permit would have to be pulled.. Mr. Helm felt that the noise problem could be mitigated and wondered if this was "sane kind of popularity vote". He stated that if the board at the Lakes had let them give a presentation there wouldn't have been vehement opposition and because of the nature of the Lakes, if five people disagree, then they stick together because they are their friends. He felt that with adequate exposure of the facts, the project could be approved. Commissioner Richards stated that he had some good points. He noted that a developer was present who has had lots of opposition, but he used creativity to reach people, such as an open house. It required more effort, but his .efforts paid off. He stated that it is the applicant's responsibility to get residents to listen to the presentation and how that is accomplished might require some creativity. He noted that 10 people are affected, 432 signed a petition in opposition, and only two people present are here in favor of the project (the applicants). Mr. Saxton stated that he was not sure of the legal issue, but 5 MINMES PALM DESERT PLAW2C M44ISSION DDC a4 ER 6, 1988 understood that the commission was under pressure from the citizens. He felt that facts have not been clearly distributed. Commissioner Dawns informed him that he had been in his Del Mar restaurant and felt he ran a good operation. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. EARL WALLIS, Board of Directors at the Lakes, stated that he appreciated the comments made by Commission Richards. He said that the reason the developer was denied a hearing was because it was the annual homeowners meeting which is very restricted by the CC:&R's. He indicated there were over 900 homeowners under the impression that this would be an office. To mitigate a problem means they agree and there has not been any agreement and did not want any restaurant on that corner. He indicated that the waterfalls were not a solution for the noise problem and explained that waterfalls within the Lakes are turned off at 10:00 p.m. because of the noise. MR. TCM BERNATZ, 24 Lost River, submitted pictures of the wall, building, and location of the proposed project to his home. He stated that they are only 146' from this office building. He indicated that picture 1 shrews 60' from the cannon wall to their home; picture 2 the 85' fran the entrance to the wall; and picture 3 shows the 146' from the bedroom. He also expressed concern regarding the noise, especially with the bar open until 1:30 in the morning. They moved fron Palm Springs for privacy and quietness and "would not have paid a nickle if they knew about this proposal" . He stated that if Sunrise had ever envisioned a restaurant in this facility they would not have placed the entrance facing the Lakes. Regarding the waterfall to mask traffic and door slamming, he asked haw one noise plus one noise equaled zero noise. A bar and restaurant would be destructive to the high quality of living and they would lose $50,000 in property values if a bar and fish restaurant and a total of $3 1/2-5 million would be lost for the hones in the Lakes. He requested that the commission maintain Palm Desert's concern for the resident and noted that a sign on the Freeway for La Quinta says, "Please do not disturb" and that is his sentiment. If stated that if Mr. Hein appeals to city council, he will challenge him there. DR. KOGAN stated that he lives in the middle of the Lakes and indicated that they were not ever notified of what was 6 MINUMS PALM DESERT PLAMDG CM4MICN DBM43ER 6, 1988 happening. He expressed concern regarding the noise generated by deliveries at all times of the day and night and indicated that sometimes boxes are dropped, which is noisy. He did not think that he would hear them, but there are people close by that would. He stated that they could hear noise from the Marriott in the summer. MR. ALAN CARMENE, 10 Lost River, commented that Mr. Helm contacted him and he met with him for several hours, and did not feel the noise problem was solved. He indicated that in his business he has fought the problem of odor and noise for years with OSHA and it has never been solved. He was also concerned about the parking lot because his residence is right over the back fence and there would be a problem with security because people in the parking lot would have an excuse for being there and they could hap over the wall and endanger or enjure them. He indicated that every place he has seen has a pest and rodent problem and the landscaping around this building would aggrevate the problem. He also objected to the licquor sale and consumption that close to the homes when it is prohibited next to schools and residences. MR. PETS NEULENE, 30 Lost River Drive, indicated that he was 60' from the fence and directly over the fence would be the parking �.. lot. He mentioned that there would not be very much traffic out at night and they would be getting 168 more cars then they are getting now, which is a lot of noise. He felt it would be especially loud when people leave restaurant and talk loud, especially after a drink or two and call out to each other. He indicated that he knew of many places in Palm Desert that would be better suited to a restaurant than this location. He has lived there 4 1/2 years and knew that Sunrise would occupy the building. He stated that they would move if a restaurant were to occupy the building because this is their prime residence and need the peace and quiet. The restaurant might be beneficial for the city tax-wise, but the residents' property would depreciate and be assessed at a lower level and would provide no gain to the city. He noted that the Lakes has a dining roam, the Marriott has several restaurants, and Desert Falls has a dining facility--so where would people benefit from having a restaurant here. He felt that if it's a good restaurant, people would be willing to drive to get there. Regarding the water, he could have bought a unit next to the water elements, but the noise disturbs him and water would create two noises instead of one. Cars would also be too great and they have had trouble with people jumping over the fence and stealing things. He 7 rwr► MINUTES PALM DESERT PLAMUII G O"OILSSICN DBC 943ER 6, 1988 MO totally approved of the previous speakers' comments and requested denial of the project. Mr. Helm spoke in rebuttal and indicated that the Lakes board would not agree to set up another time to meet with them. The bcmeowners group would not meet with him so what they present is totally different. He felt the major issue here is competition with their clubhouse restaurant and in talking with other developers, the idea was brought up. He also noted that applications filed with staff are to be processed in a timely manner and indicated that they had been in hearing one month and a half ago and didn't understand why staff hadn't mentioned the need for environnental documents and had the feeling that staff was ,just "going through the motions any way" and wanted his opinion to go on record. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony and asked for ccnmission ocmients. Commissioner Richards felt that the current zoning for the parcel is not correct and should be changed so that the developer can understand his options. He felt that the choices of use should be narrowed down so that Mr. Helm could understand his position because of the number of years the residents have been living there and the r effect on them. Mr. Drell suggested that a solution might be to prepare an action initiating a change of zone to office professional. C mnissioner Richards said that he would like the owner/developer to be given another chance with the homeowners to present their proposal. If the use were reduced, it has to be by virtue of unmitigatable measures. He requested that staff think about that and what needs to be done and worked out legally between the city attorney and staff. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Cnudssioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Coninissioner Downs, adopting Planning Camiission Resolution No. 1312 denying CUP 88-11. Carried 5-0. 8 MINLUES PALM DESERT PLANNING CXMJISSICN DDC E BER 6, 1988 B. Continued Case No. ZOA 88-4 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25. 100 to allow timeshare projects as a conditional use in the General Commercial (C-1), Planned Residential (PR) and Resort Ccmre 'dial (PC-4) zones. Ms. Sass informed oommission that due to what is being proposed, the city council is now willing to consider timeshare in conjunction with hotels. She stated that the Marriott Desert Springs Resort has submitted an application for a timeshare project and most recent legislation changes will be applied. The code presently allows timeshare in planned residential and resort commercial zones, only with a conditional use permit and in conjunction with a hotel. Cannissioner Richards requested further clarification. Mr. Diaz explained that under present timeshare regulations, timeshare projects must be in conjunction with a hotel. However, the projects are limited to C-1 and PC zones. Hotels are allowed with PR zoning. He indicated that were two ways the Marriott could have applied: 1) rezone present property to PC-4 or 2) amend the code to allow timeshare with conditional use permit in the PR zone. This amendment was generated by the city and council indicated they would consider ` the proposal along with oam issicn's recommendation. He explained that the transient occupancy tax would be eliminated on timeshare units, as well as allow timeshare units in the PR zone. Cannissioner Richards asked if there were any examples of timeshare units in the city. Mr. Diaz replied that there were no timeshare units presently in the city, but indicated there might have been in 1980-81. Catndssioner Richards noted that the city has no timeshare units and is considering some and will not be getting any taxes, too. Chairman Erwood asked what the advantage would be to the city and what had changed since the adoption of the original ordinance to justify the change. Mr. Diaz replied to allow applications to be made to the city in this additional zone. Cannissioner Downs asked what the financial advantage would be to the city. Mr. Diaz replied that property taxes would be received. Ccandssioner Ladlow indicated that the text states it is the intent of city council to permit only well financed and properly managed timeshare projects in the city and questioned how that would be determined. Mr. Diaz explained that each project application would be judged on its own merit and that questions regarding management 9 o.. N]1]U ES PAIM DESERT PLAINIM OCWSSIC N DECEMER 6, 1988 old could be asked at that public hearing. Commissioner Ladlow noted that if Marriott is going to be heard, then commission will be allowed to address that specific issue as part of that application. Chairman Erwood o ened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. S00'IT TURNER, an attorney from Irvine, stated that he worked with the city attorney to redraft the ordinance and was available for any questions. He stated that he has experience with timeshares. Commissioner Richards indicated that he wished to state his objections. He felt that timeshare as a long-range investment potential had not been proven rewarding and expressed concern over past marketing practices. Mr. Turner indicated that timeshare in this state has been done in an incorrect way many times. He stated that timeshare is nothing more or less than a means of owning property and the Marriott Corporation is a new player in the field. He indicated that the development as a group will not market timeshare like other projects, and Commissioner Richards' reservations could be alleviated. UW Commissioner Richards stated that the Marriott has stood the test of time and quality and he might be slightly persuaded if they could came before the co«mission and show a proven history. He stated that the Desert Sun runs three to four pages on defaults daily and wondered why a rational person would put up a good amount of money to stay in a place for one to three weeks a year. He did not feel it made economic sense. He also cited past dealings with a person in the timeshare industry. Mr. Turner agreed with comments by Commissioner Richards and indicated that he had spent enough time with the Marriott and had been a member on the real estate commission. He indicated that he could give the commission information on Marriott's other projects on the east coast; an entirely different product that what the commission has seen. Mr. Diaz explained that part of the conditional use permit can be that the city approve the sales program. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the timeshare use in the PR zone and he stated it exists in other zones. He understood the concern expressed on timeshare, but noted that the ordinance will allow people to ask for timeshare, but does not guarantee approval and with the conditional i 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNIM Cuff4ISSICN DDC EMER 6, 1988 use permit the city can asked for any information. Legally timeshare cannot be prohibited. Cannissioner Richards asked haw a conditional use permit can be used to halt the practices that are currently used. If Marriott were bought out tomorrow the city would not have control if they were to make changes. He did not feel that Palm Desert needed to embark on a pioneering adventure when it has been denKrmstrated that the industry has not cleaned up their program and hasn't had sufficient time to prove itself as a quality product. Mr. Turner replied that the Marriott has a substantial history on the east coast. Commissioner Richards asked for haw long and Mr. Turner indicated 12 years. MR. ED ViJvULLEN, Executive Vice President of Marriott Resorts, gave a description of his background/previous timeshare ownership and noted that the industry has changed. He indicated that they do business all over the world and he has been in the business for 12 years with a current total of 25,000 owners and growing rapidly. He stated that a presentation was given to the city council some months ago. From a standpoint of marketing, Marriott Corporation and his previous company has the highest standards. From standpoint of default, Melon Corporation is their partner and they could be contacted for verification. He indicated a quality project would be built. They came to the city council with a presentation and looked at ordinance and felt the ordinance should be changed. He stated that if the commission would allow them past this "first hurdle", they would present a presentation he felt would eliminate concerns. C:annissioner Downs requested clarification regarding the number of owners and Mr. McMullen replied 25,000. He indicated that Hilton, ITT, and Disney would soon be proposing timeshare and felt the value of a long-term plan of leisure activity has increased and has a better and better market. Commissioner Ladlow asked if this was Marriott's fourth year in timeshare and Mr. McMullen replied yes. Commissioner Ladlow questioned the number of total timeshare units involved; Mr. McMullen indicated that he would gladly get her the information. Chairman Erwood asked why ordinance amendment method was chosen. Mr. Diaz indicated that staff suggested the ordinance amendment due to the fact that because hotels are allowed in the PR zone, the city might wish to consider timeshare for other hotels (i.e. Westin). 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLAMMU CICNMLSSION DDCk MER 6, 1988 Chairman Erwood stated that it seemed when the ordinance was first discussed, timeshare was purposely designated in the two zones and asked what has changed to justify them changing this ordinance, rather than changing zcning of the Marriott. Mr. Diaz stated that hotels had not been envisioned and Marriott, as well as Westin, should be considered and felt it was more appropriate to consider a zoning ordinance amendment. Commissioner Richards expressed concern regarding the people and sales practices used by the timeshare industry and indicated that these would be the type of people Marriott Corporation would bring to Palm Desert. Mr. McMullen indicated that Marriott Corporation was not going to tarnish their image by doing anything other than the job its already cone. He stated that it is a value project with a value product and totally acceptable. He indicated that one requirement is an above $50,000 per year income. He also stated that everyone that doesn't buy is surveyed, and they receive feedback about the sales people and 7o�]�v](e�r 40% that did not buy said they would like to buy and intend to buy.. Commissioner Richards asked what fee would be changed and Mr. r McMullen indicated $10,000 and an annual maintenance fee of $250-300. Commissioner Downs asked when an truer stays the week if maid and cleaning services are included or extra. Mr. McMullen outlined which services were provided. He also described the type of architectural standards and noted that they had received national awards for architecture and landscaping. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITIM to the project. There being no one, he closed the public testimony. Cb missioner Whitlock stated that she was present for the Marriott presentation before the city council and felt that it was done very professionally. She suggested that the commission hear the presentation by Marriott, which would demonstrate the changes that have taken place in the timeshare industry. Chairman Erwood asked how many units in a hotel were necessary before it can be classified for timeshare units. Commissioner Whitlock replied 50. Mr. Diaz indicated that the minimum number of hotel roams can be increased to whatever amount the commission would be comfortable with. i 12 N ufUT S PALM DESERT PLAMIM CCM ISSICN DBU9 BER 6, 1988 Commissioner Richards stated that he was not against the Marriott, but had owned a hotel here and had experience with the timeshare industry, and he felt it has not proven itself and would be more appropriate for discussion in a few years. Mr. McMullen indicated that this year the industry would do $2 billion in sales. He stated that the are listed with the New York Stock Exchange and felt the industry has matured in the last four years and will increase tremendously in the next few years. He indicated that they were willing to give a formal presentation to cover all points. He reiterated that the industry has matured and is well regulated. Commissioner Richards asked if Mr. McMullen knew how many people sit on the California Real Estate Board and does nothing but regulate timeshares. Mr. Turner indicated that there were 380 employees with approximately eight senior people, but with a great number of other support staff. Commissioner Richards felt that this was a very small amount of people and they just handle complaints. Mr. Turner disagreed. Commissioner Richards stated that eight people were regulating this industry. Mr. Turner replied that there were more, that the eight spend time evaluating specific projects, but there was r.. other staff. Commissioner Ladlow asked for and received information on the location of the potential timeshare units. At the completion of the discussion, Chairman Er wood asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Notion failed on a 2-3 vote (Exwood, Ladlow, and Richards voted no). Moved by Co udssioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the December 20, 1988 planning connission meeting. Carried 3-2 (Downs and Whitlock voted no). Mr. Diaz asked about the findings for denial. Commissioner Richards stated that they could be taken from his comments. Mr. Turner asked if a continuance could be granted to allow for a presentation to the commission. Chairman Erwood explained that the matter had already been voted on and had Mr. Diaz explain the appeal process. 13 MIND ES PALM DESERT PLAMDU CCM-iISSICN DDC E BER 6, 1988 C. Case Nos. C/Z 88-7 and PP 88-18 - LIFE CARE SERVICES C WXORATICN, Applicant Request for approval of a development agreement, change of zone from PR-5 and O.S.N. (Open Space- Natural) to PR-7 and precise plan of design for a 260 unit plus 60 bed health care facility life care retirement cc mmT=-dty on 41.48 acres on the north side of Fred Waring Drive, 664 feet east of Deep Canyon Road. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and reviewed his suggestion of commission action on page 8 of the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the findings and resolution subject to conditions. Chairman Erwood asked if the bikepath along the property would remain and Mr. Smith replied yes, that it was Coachella Valley Water District property and was not impacted. Commissioner Richards stated that Phyllis Jackson Lane should be straightened for safety reasons. Mr. Diaz stated that it was regulated by the school district, but indicated that the applicant had expressed a willingness to work with the school district. Cammissioner Richards indicated that this was high priority and felt that it would be done if tied to the project. Mr. Smith noted that one letter had been received from AG Accounting, Inc. , the property owner who farms the date trees who wished to retain his right to continue farming in the same manner and expressed concern about health care patients being sensitive to the spray. Commissioner Ladlow felt that the letter should on record. She asked how many trees would be kept and noted that a good percentage are replants and would die. Commissioner Ladlow also noted that the residents of Los Lagos expressed concern due to problems with the spraying of trees since the winds go west to east. She asked if the applicant's were aware of this problem. Mr. Smith stated that they were given a copy of this letter. Commissioner Downs felt that the commission had received conflicting information for the production and life of date palms. Mr. Smith indormed the oc mm isson that Mr. Johnson was a former member of the architectural commission. 14 WOO NIIIVCTI�S PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DDC E BE R 6, 1988 rr.. Commissioner Richards indicated that the intent was to have permanent trees and leave some date palms within the City of Palm Desert and instructed that in a tree maintenance program 10 trees a year be replaced. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the oammission. MR. JIM BLOOMQUIST, Life Care Services, asked to address concerns raised by the commission. He stated that the useful production of a date palm will end after 85 years and indicated Mr. Johnson would be hired to oversee the date palm maintenance. C nrdssioner Richards indicated that it was of importance that the trees be maintained, whether it bears fruit or not. Mr. Blocmquist indicated that the section along Phyllis Jackson Lane had been kept green and that the current property owner had received an offer from the school district for a 65' strip and would have a written agreement with the school district sometime in the spring. He stated that the school district plans to start in June and complete in September. Mr. Bloomquist ... described their organization. MR. TCM FINLEY, Leo Daley of Omaha, described the architectural design, landscaping, and amenities of the project. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. There was no one. He asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. VIRGINIA SEVERS stated that she met with Mr. Bloomquist and the architect and felt that it was a beutiful plan. She expressed concern regarding traffic and changing the zone. She was concerned about changing residential to ccmTercial. Chairman Erwood asked staff about the traffic impact. Mr. Smith read a portion of his staff report from page 5 and indicated that the item was addressed in condition number 16. Cnrdssioner Richards noted that the traffic generated by this development would be reduced because of the nature of the project. Ms. Severs stated that every time construction occurs, more 15 r.. MI AYES PALM DESERT PLANNUG CCM4SSIC N DEC EMBER BER 6, 1988 Y traffic is generated and thought it would be wonderful if the city knew how to control the traffic. MR. ALAN CARKELLIS, Silkt-ree, requested clarification regarding one or two story units, grading off Deept Canyon and expressed concern regarding traffic and backyard privacy. He asked if the applicant had taken into consideration that Deep Canyon is a major spill way. Chairman Erwood noted that public works conditions address drainage. MS. C HARLENE MC LEAN, IrontAood, expressed opposition and felt that there was a need for single family residences, especially close to schools. She indicated concern for possible conflicts between rambunctious high school students and the elderly residents and disturbance from the ballfield lights and noise. MR. WILLIAM KELLSEY, Catalina, felt that the best use of the property would be R-1. The applicant indicated that the cost will be approximately $300,000 in cash. Ms. McLean asked how people will afford $300,000 plus $800 a month and asked the co mdssicn to consider this also. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony. CcamLissioner Ladlow felt that her concerns had been raised and felt that this was a nice project, but would be better in a different location. With the makeup of the conrunity and the schools in the vicinity, this development might change the character of the oaam ini ty. Ccmnissioner Richards felt that with a development of this type the date grove atmosphere would be preserved, when it wouldn't if developed into single family residences. He also noted that most people don't want to live right next to a school. He felt that this type of development would be acceptable with property landscaping. Commissioner Richards stated that the high school expansion concerns should be addressed and indicated that he would like to see a representative from the school district present sometime. He indicated that while this may not be exactly the best place for the development, he was considering the fact that a date grove will be preserved and very few developments could do that. He indicated that he would like some assurance that the school district is satisfied that the facility is adequate for the next ten years. 16 M914 TIES PALM DESERT PLANN NG CCHMISSICN DBU34 ER 6, 1988 Mr. Folkers indicated that a condition should be added to public works that the applicant shall satisfy the Kelly Ordinance obligations owed to the City of Palm Desert prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Folkers indicated that it is their recommendation that the road not be a public street. After discussion regarding the 65' easement, Commissioner Richards indicated that he would like a condition of approval or some type of written proof of the school district's intention to straighten Phyllis Jackson before voting on this project. Chairman Erwood reopened the public hearing to allow for a motion of continuance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, continuing the matter to December 20, 1988 to allow the applicant to mitigate camdssicn concerns related to the improvements at the north end of Phyllis Jackson Lane. Carried 5-0. D. Case No. PP 88-19 - RCN CDEEQ;t, Applicant Request for approval of the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 10,920 NNW square foot cammercial building with mezzanine space and a paseo connecting President's Plaza to E1 Paseo, located 140 feet west of Portola Avenue. Mr. Joy outlined the salient points of the staff report and explained that the architecture would blend with the existing buildings and stated that the project had received approval by the Palm Desert Property Owners Association. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Richards stated that this subject has been heard before and some projects have been approved and some denied. He requested clarification from staff. Mr. Joy explained the present ordinance regulations. Commissioner Richards felt that everytime something is added, the problem is compounded. Mr. Diaz explained that this was before the commission in 1980-81 when an addition was completed for Mr. Pitchford that meets code and the reason for problem with parking was principally employees; they had to came in for a conditional use permit. Office uses had a problem, retain commercial solved that problem. In addition, the economic development advisory comLittee recommended to the council 17 env MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CENNIISSICN DBCU43FR 6, 1988 low that the first priority be to provide additional parking in that area (i.e. restriping) to create a better situation. He did not feel there would be a problem. Mr. Joy provided some background information regarding a project by Mr. Bernie Leung. Commissicner Richards stated that decisions are not consistent when the rules are not set in stove. Commissioner Ladlow noted that the businesses on El Paseo are required to limit first floor to retail and asked if the President's Plaza also applied to this rule. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. STAN KASSOVIC, 70-021 Highway 111, stated that he represented Mr. Odekirk and asked if he could answer any questions. Mr. Diaz asked Mr. Kassovic if he would agree to a condition being added that ground floor tenants would be retail commercial use only. Mr. Kassovic concurred. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, sew by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-1 (Connissicner Richards voted no. ) Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1324, approving PP 88- 19, subject to conditicns as amended. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Richards voted no. VIII. MISCELIANBOUS None. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 18 mmmmi MINUIES PALM DESERT PLANNING, CESSION DEC EMBER BER 6, 1988 r X. CU44EMII5 None. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adjourning the meeting. Carried 5-0. The meeting was ourned at 10:51 p.m. �✓I�7 7 • RAMON A. DIAZ, Secre ATTEST: ✓Glj` ICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman `r /tm 19