Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0815 MINL)TES PALM DESERT PLANNING. COMMISSION MEETING U ESDAY - AUGUST 15, 1989 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER QIUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARIING.7 DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Frwood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Rick Frwood, Chairman Bob Downs Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Members Absent: Carol Whitlock Staff Present: Ray Diaz Kandy Allen Joe Gaugush Phil Drell Steve Smith Catherine Sass Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF M NUIES: Consideration for approval the minutes of July 5, 18 and August 1, 1989. Commissioner Richards asked why there were three sets of minutes to approve and staff indicated that it was due to vacation and workload schedules. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by C.camissioner Jonathan, approving the minutes as submitted by staff. Carried 4-0. V. SLE4 ARY OF AIL ACTIC N Mr. Diaz stated there had been no city council meeting since the last planning commission meeting. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 1989 goo VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. TT 19503 - GE1MGE EM, Applicant Request for a one year time extension for a 58 lot single family hillside subdivision. B. Case No. CUP 88-2 - SCEMITZ alrERPRISES, Applicant Request for a one year time extension of a 17- unit senior citizen apartment project on the south side of Santa Rosa, approximately 200 feet east of San Pascual avenue. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Ccninissioner Downs, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). Ccnmission also directed staff to notify the applicants that future extension requests for these cases would not be approved. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. PP 89-12 - GBDRGE METSOVAS, Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and a precise plan of design for a 17,000 square foot commercial building located on the north side of Highway 111 midway between Portola Avenue and San Luis Rey Avenue. Mr. Drell reviewed the background of the case. He indicated that trash enclosures should be relocated to a place other than at the rear, noting that public works would not permit curb cuts for trash enclosures; staff was requiring street trees along Alessandro to create a more attractive elevation. Mr. Drell informed o nission that the parking lot was still in the front, but that additional landscaping was added, the project received preliminary approval from architectural commission and staff recxnmended approval. Camu ssioner Jonathan asked if the rear parking was explored as an alternative; Mr. Drell replied that the applicant was adamant against rear parking. Commissioner Richards asked if the council would have to review the tower and asked for clarification of the side view of 2 too NIINLY S PALM DESERT PLANN12G C)C ICSSION ALIaW 15, 1989 �.r the front overhang; Mr. Drell replied that the tower would go to council and stated that it would be a bell tower with a lamp inside. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the ocmmmission. MR. STEVE METSOVAS, 18-471 Hillcrest in Philbark, stated that he was present to answer questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the basis for the rear parking was and Mr. Metsovas replied security and convenience. Commissioner Richards mentioned the amount of employees that would be required to park in the front of the building. Mr. Metsovas stated that they usually have a specific number of spaces per unit for tenants and then other workers park on the street or somewhere else. Commissioner Richards disagreed with that and asked the applicant to list places where he has other developments. Mr. Metsovas replied the cities of San Clemente, Tustin and Orange. Mr. Diaz advised the applicant that he could not by the leasing restrictions encourage the employees or people to park on the streets--all parking requirements of the city had to be met. ,r Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVM or OPPOSITION to the project. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Richards felt that a building in a praninent location should be something unique and different and did not like the parking in the front. He felt the applicant should try again. Commissioner Jonathan agreed and stated that his main problems were the front parking, which would create undue congestion and be aesthetically detrimental. He felt this could be resolved by rear parking with a drive through between the buildings or a driveway on either side. Chairman Erwood asked if the applicant would agree to a continuance. Mr. Metsovas asked why the commission wanted the parking in the rear. Commissioner Richards spoke regarding employee parking and informed the applicant that he wanted an architect present at the next meeting and the project as a whole should be upgraded. Commissioner Jonathan stated that congestion visible from the highway and aesthetics were his main objections. Mr. Metsovas agreed to a continuance. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANIIIIlNG7 O MMIISSIGN AUGUST 15, 1989 Commissioner Richards requested clarification on the counting of frontage road parking as part of the applicant's required parking. Mr. Drell explained that each case was considered individually. He stated that with the frontage road redesign, parking in front was held out to motivate people to develop the superblock concept. Commissioner Richards cautioned staff to consider the future and felt this should not be used too often. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant could be asked to reduce the building or there might be other alternatives to allow him to meet the code requirement. Mr. Diaz noted that if Fred Waring were vacated, the frontage road parking would be counted against their required parking. Ccximissioner Richards noted that it might not be too far off that Highway Ill would be four lanes, which would be under Caltrans control. Cannissioner Richards stated that he would like a statement frcm council to the planning co[tmission that says they want to do away with the frontage road. Mr. Drell indicated that public works was now in the process of preparing an ultimate Highway 111 plan frcm Monterey to past Deep Canyon and the Portola intersection would be dealt with as part of the master plan. C.cmuissioner Richards stated that he would move for a continuance, and the applicant should understand that he should bring a better rendering and plans and recannended that a local architect be hired. Chairman Erwood reopened the public hearing. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Cannissioner Downs, continuing PP 89-12 to September 19, 1989. Carried 4-0. Staff recommended that the next two public hearing items be considered simultaneously. Connission concurred and directed staff to so proceed. B. Ocnti.nued Case No. TT 24214 - PACIFIC THEATRES INC., Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and a 16 lot single family subdivision located on 4.58 acres within the PR-5 zone on the north side of Country Club Drive 700 feet east of Portola. C. Case No. TT 24923 - UNITED SAVINGS BANK, Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and a 105 lot single family subdivision on 29.34 acres within the PR-5 zone 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CCM IISSICN AUGUST 15, 1989 vow on the north side of Country Club Drive, 1000 feet east of Portola Avenue. Mr. Drell stated that item B was continued from two weeks ago. He indicated the main issues were access and development standards controlling two story construction. He noted two additions/oorrections for Pacific Theatres in the staff report. He stated that one story setbacks front would be 20, rear 15 and sides a combination of 14, no less than 5 feet on any one side and coverage would be 35%, which are standards for R-1. Where two story construction would be permitted, the front yard setback 20 feet, rear 25 feet, sides 10 foot minimum with building separation of a minimum of 20 feet; coverage would be 25%. He felt that philosophically, living in a neighborhood with two story construction was a matter of choice. If two story was a detriment to the marketing program of the subdivision, the developer will not build two story because the project wouldn't sell. There would be a loss of privacy in a two story arrangement, but it would permit greater setbacks, greater amount of landscaping, and larger yards as required by the standards. Mr. Drell stated that in United Savings' staff report there was a letter from them addressing the two story issue. He felt that architecturally, two story buildings could be designed to be energy efficient, relative to insulation, design of roofs and roof overhangs. Mr. Drell noted a correction in United Savings resolution public works condition #12 should eliminate the words "ingress and". This would provide good access to both tracts and Silver Sands. He noted that the applicants were working with Manor Care for the remnant lot to allow them a safe entrance/exit onto Country Club. Staff recommended approval of both tract maps and, indirectly, approval of the master plan for the remaining five acres on the west. C nrdssioner Richards commented that 1) staff correctly brought out the problem of infill projects, but the problem here was raw land, small parcels and different owners, it did not work out as well in practical applications and theoretically and an agreement was needed as to who could build what and where to avoid future city involvement in potential problems; 2) The main problem that people complain about is the view situation and with enough setbacks and side view, it would be okay, but he was against 20 feet; he had no problem with two story as long as it was in a development that allows each neighbor to have his/her own privacy and enjoy views. Mr. Drell noted that on the west side the project would abut office professional zone with one and two story buildings and it should not be restricted to one story and all property owners buying into the tract would be notified where potential two story could be developed. Mr. Diaz stated that the issue of two story could be worked out due 5 low e 1'1.1- &I1 ES PALM DESERT PLANNING (X:FMSSICN AUGUST 15, 1989 I 1 to the high level of cooperation between the two developments and a condition could be placed that on the lots abutting the two subdivisions an agreement shall be reached between the two property owners and shall be made part of this development. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the project description for Pacific Theatres should read east of Portola. Mr. Drell stated that Portola was correct. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the property owner of the southwest corner; Mr. Drell replied it was owned by two people, Stormy Dayton (who expressed general concurrence to staff) and Ms. Patricia Martin, who no one had been able to reach. Mr. Drell noted that the Dennis Freeman/Baroon development was approved on Hovley with two story and specific lots were designated throughout the development for two story. Commissioner Jonathan felt the key issue was loss of privacy from two story which could be mitigated by wider setbacks and asked about side setbacks. Mr. Drell stated that he had lived next to two story hones, but did not believe that with the widths of lots, line of sight with 20-30 feet would not do a lot unless 12 foot trees were planted. He felt 100 feet would mitigate privacy as required in an infill situation. Commissioner Richards felt that the developers were dictating to the city how things should be done. He was not convinced that this needed to be done right now. Chairman Erwood disagreed and rated that if there was a market for two story it would sell, if not they would not sell. People would know buying in where two story units would be built and residents should have a choice. Mr. Diaz indicated that with the criteria established the only people that would know there were two story units in this development will be the people who live there. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked the applicant from Pacific Theatres to address the catmissien. MR. LARRY JOHNSON, 72-780 El Paseo in Palm Desert, stated that he was the civil engineer for Pacific Theatres and United Savings and he talked to Stormy Dayton many times. He asked if commission received a letter from Mr. Keiter of Pacific Theatres. Staff indicated no. Mr. Johnson read the letter into the record (see exhibit A). Mr. Johnson stated that they had met many times and the layout was approved verbally by Manor Care, Stormy Dayton, Pacific Theatres, and United Savings. All felt if any others wished to build two story units anywhere on their property, it was okay with them and didn't seem to be a big problem to the builders. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING C1CK4ISSION AIXaW 15, 1989 o.r Commissioner Richards stated that he was not convinced there was a market for two stogy and was not convinced that two story was appropriate for Palm Desert or that privacy could be mitigated by a 20 foot setback. He noted that it was the prerogative of the developer to ask for two story where the zoning calls for two story development, but the commission maintained the ability to mitigate problems for future neighbors. CcRmissioner Richards indicated that staff was prohibiting two story development along the perimeter and asked if the applicant agreed. Mr. Johnson replied that there were different philosophies; some people felt the perimeter should be low massing to present a less imposing look and others feel that a variation of roof line is superior. Mr. Johnson asked for and received clarification on public works condition #20 from Mr. Gaugush. Mr. Diaz noted that if the assessment district did not fruition, the applicant would still have the transportation mitigation fee. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR of either project. MR. PETER DELUCA, 35-500 Old Harbor Drive in Bermuda Dunes, owner of ten acres behind Manor Care, stated that he was in �. favor of allowing two story residences on the property and felt it was a matter of preference. Commissioner Richards felt that if the city was to achieve a level of excellence or direction of being a well-planned ccmrnulity privacy was needed. MR. JIM GLEASON, 9 La Jolla Drive in Palm Desert, representing Silver Sands Racquet Club, spoke in favor of the project but expressed concern with traffic safety, circulation, character and quality of the community. He felt this was somewhat different because this area was a developing area and the commission had an opportunity to do a great deal for the quality and the character of the area. He felt the median cuts and traffic should be coordinated and felt the two story should blend with the one story units and the center dividers with landscaping and drought resistent plants with a drip system should be provided, not sprinklers to spray cars. Mr. Diaz stated that the present developments were required to install half the medians and the Silver Sands development was required to pay for their half of the median, so the funds should be there when this development proceeds to install the median. As far 7 tow MINUMS PALM DESERT PLANNING 034IISSI(N AUCLST 15, 1989 i as the landscaping was concerned, the city was aware of the sprinkler problem. Cook Street north of Country Club was converted from oasis grass to desert and something similar would be done in this location. Mr. Gleason felt that sane economies might be possible if Portola and Country Club areas were constructed at the same time. He recognized the prohibition of left-turns out of Silver Sands; he stated on behalf of Silver Sands he would have to object to this. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITIM to the project. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Catmissioner Jonathan felt the issue of two stories was part of the larger issue of density. He visited some sites with lots around 8,000 square foot areas with hones upward to 3,000 square feet with minimnum five feet on the side yard restriction. He stated that it looked atrocious. He indicated his concern was the side yard setback and the project should be made to look nice. He felt a total 25 foot separation with a minimum 10 foot setback on side for single story, two story should be 30 foot separation with a minimum 15 feet. He stated that would be more acceptable then the current proposal. Commissioner Richards stated that he did have a preconceived opinion on two story development and shared the opinions of Ccnmissioner Jonathan. He felt that the city at a planning staff level has the obligation to voice an opinion of a certain direction the city should go and the long term effects of certain policies that are important. If there were estate-sized homes that did not effect neighbors, he would not have a problem. He was concerned with precedents and was not comfortable with the setbacks and in particular the side setbacks; the more width the better. He stated he would be willing to vote approval of the project subject to a change in the setbacks and would go along with the number suggested by Commissioner Jonathan, but just for the two story units. Commissioner Richards made the motion to adopt the findings. Canuissioner Downs stated that unless there was a 50 foot separation it would not do any good and suggested reopening the hearing and having a continuance to allow the applicant to see what the applicant could do with the new conditions. Commissioner Downs felt the applicant should be allowed to speak on this issue. Mr. Drell stated that the lots were typically 70-80 feet in width, which would allow 30 feet of side setback on a typical two story house. 1 8 NIINUIES PALM DESERT PLANNING CCMMIISSIM AUGUST 15, 1989 �.r Commissioner Jonathan asked what options exist for single family residences--he understood what the ordinance allowed, but did not feel it was right. Mr. Diaz stated that 8,000 square foot minimum lot sizes for PR-5 was established as the smallest in the city and PR-5 allowed five units per gross acre; he felt that side yards were the most useless yards and traditionally in most urban areas it was five feet. Mr. Diaz felt the side yard setbacks in the city were fine and the only people effected are the people who live there. Commissioner Jonathan disagreed with what would be created. Commissioner Richards stated that the suggested two story setbacks should be 15 feet and separation for 30 feet for the two projects and should be changed in the resolution. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would second the motion, but he intended to follow up with staff on the alternatives for future development. Chairman Erwood stated that if Palm Desert wanted to require lots like above Somera at 10,000 or 11,000 square feet; it would be hard for a young family to cane up with $200,000 to live in the community. If a development was designed right the setbacks could be lived with. He noted that in the development he lives in the size of the side setbacks has not effected the sell out of the project or the resale. a.. He felt there should be an allowance for a population mix. Commissioner Jonathan agreed that a wide range of affordability should be available, but did not feel 8,000 square foot lots created low income housing. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1373, approving TT 24214, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1374, approving TT 24923, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0. D. Case No. TT 24984 - YOUNG BUILDING, CORP., Applicant 9 %NW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNIM CCMMIISSICN AUGUST 15, 1989 we Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 28 acres of date palm graves into 105 lots for future single family hone sites. Ms. Sass outlined the salient points of the staff report. She stated that since the writing of the staff report the perimeter landscaping had been redesigned to comply with code. She indicated that the plan would be included for review by the architectural review commission at its next meeting. Based on the conditions, staff recommended approval. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DAVID YOUNG AND MR. ROBIN YOUNG were present. Mr. David Young stated that they hoped to make a tract the city would be proud of and were present, along with Mr. Vatcher, to answer questions. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITICN to the proposal. MR. LOUSHUCK SUMMER, a resident of Hidden Palms, stated that he was not present in opposition, but present because the board was concerned about a wall that should be constructed on Deep Canyon, because the rear of the proposed hones would be exposed to Deep Canyon. Staff indicated that a perimeter wall was designed for Deep Canyon and would provide 20 feet of landscaping between the project and the curb. MR. THCMAS BERGMAN, 269 Portofino Court in Hidden Palms, wanted to stress that date palms were part of the Coachella Valley and Palm Desert culture and requested that this be a consideration before the date palms were removed. He stated that his house backs up to Deep Canyon and the project would increase traffic noise and congestion. Ms. Sass stated that the date palm grove was abandoned and privately owned and the owner had the right to develop. She indicated that the city planned to have a date palm grave in another area and noted that a nuisance situation existed with the date palm groves. Ms. Sass stated that some date palms would remain as part of the landscape 10 MINLYIES PALM DESERT PIAMIW. OO MISSION AUGUST 15, 1989 �.. feature of the development on Deep Canyon and on the median entry into the project. Chairman E wood pointed out another example of a date grove project and a resident of Indian Wells that spoke regarding the problems that existed because of the palm trees. He noted that next to Palm Desert High School a number of trees in that grove were knocked down by the wind. Chairman Erwood stated that the city wished to keep date palms somewhere in the city to keep the tradition alive, but would have to relocate and obtain younger trees. Mr. Diaz stated that a date palm preserve was planned for the civic center site and condition #10 required the applicant to contribute to the cost of irrigation system for the date palm preserve to be located within the civic center site. He stated that the city had a commitment from Sunworld to provide the city with the shoots for the preserve and Chazan Development would contribute part of the grading cost. Commissioner Richards stated that in 1980 when Hidden Palms was approved it was supposed to be a lower cost development and they were required to maintain some date palms, but it has not been a great success. The date palm had become a problem and the agricultural maintenance required chemicals that were not unoffensive to nearby residents. Ms. Sass stated that the plan showed nine date palms on the entryway on the median and 30' on the center on the public right-of-way. She stated that she had discussed with the applicant using a different type of palm in that location, such as washingtonians. Mr. Diaz recommended that the date palms be replaced. Cortaissioner Richards requested a specific ccmmitment to replace and put in some mature, semi-mature palm trees to maintain what used to be there. The applicant disagreed, but after further discussion, Commissioner Downs clarified that this would not effect the number of trees throughout the development, but would limit them along the perimeter and Deep Canyon where the city maintains the property and would allow 20-30 palm trees. Staff recommended approval subject to palms, as shown, to be approved by the architectural commission. Ccnr fission concurred. 11 r.. MII�I�IPES PALM DESERT PLANNING 00M4ISSICN AUGUST 15, 1989 k Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Dams, adopting Planning Comtissioz Resolution No. 1375, approving TT 24984, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0. E. Case No. PP 89-22 - MELANIE PLAICE PARITETS, Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and a precise plan of design to allow construction of a two story, 16,688 square foot office building on the east side of Melanie Place, north of Sheryl Avenue. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and noted that a letter had been received from Seneca Development in favor of the project. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Drell noted that staff got a printout of all business licenses in the new park and based on the use description, it listed 95% as being ` industrial uses. He indicated one problem with the park was that it low was inherited from the county and with the construction of the Design Center a more liberal attitude was taken regarding offices. Chairman Erwood felt that office uses would not be any more objectionable than light industrial as a use in the area. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. STEVE SULLIVAN, 73-700 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, architect for the project, stated that he and a general partner was also present to answer any questions. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Cc mmissicner Richards stated that these were nice drawings. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. 's 12 H31WES PALM DESERT P.CAPIIVING Oa4IISSION AUGUST 15, 1989 Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning C nrdssion Resolution No. 1376, approving PP 89- 22, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. CHAIRMAN ERWOOD CALLED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 9:00. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:11 P.M. F. Case Nos. C/Z 89-13, PP 89-19, PM 25018 - OLIPHANP/LIZZA ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of envircrriental impact, change of zone, precise plan and parcel map for a 40,000 square foot office/retail complex at the northwest corner of Highway 111/Portola and Alessandro/Portola Avenue. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report. He indicated there would be many benefits to the city regarding traffic improvements and overall upgrading of that corner. Staff felt the trade offs for the city and developer were balanced and reccnuended r.. approval. Mr. Diaz asked how many feet of landscaping would be lost by the right-turn lane; Mr. Drell stated that the right-tux. lane would be 12 feet. Chairman Erwood asked if the grade level of the site would be lower than Highway 111; Mr. Drell replied that the building pad would be two feet lower. He noted as a oaiparison that the 1st Bank Building was 30 feet high and this building would be 22 feet high and also depressed two-three feet. Commissioner Richards expressed problems with building A, instigating two story office buildings on Portola that meets none of the previous general plans, no buffer, etc. He suggested building A be moved east along Alessandro and a parking structure be more utilized along that corner section to create a buffer. Mr. Drell stated that the building could be moved. Commissioner Richards stated this would be the first non-residential structure along Portola. Mr. Drell stated that the Core Plan designated this site as an office and the goal was on the frontage to concentrate the parking right behind residences and move a building out on a major street as far from residences as possible to minimize the building area behind the offices. The building wraps around the corner and more could be placed onto Alessandro and less on Portola. Building B would be one story. 13 MII4TIESS PAIM DESERT PLANNIW, COTIISSION NJGUST 15, 1989 Chairman EYwood opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the ca►missicn. MR. RICHARD OLIPHANT, 77-900 Avenue of the States in Palm Desert, stated that they had been working four years to assemble the project and noted it would requiring the tearing down of some houses and the removal of Sturm Electric Building, the removal of the old So. California Edison building and the nursery next to Car Technology. The project was set up with the office professional providing the transition to the camiercial from the residential; office professional buildings, building A, would be headquarters of Ron Gregory and Associates, which would be low intense use and nicely landscaped and buffered. He stated that parking would be to the side and rear of the building. He indicated the center of the area parking would be awned by himself, the commercial building across the street and the parking was all together for that building; the last building office professional single story had its own parking. Building C designated down stairs as pre-leased commercial/retail uses and upstairs would be office professional. The architecture single story feature on the corner reduces the impact of a two story building on the intersection--the second story would not be a front flush building, but would set back with a balcony appearance on the front along Highway 111. To mitigate the improvements required, 40,000 square feet was needed there. He felt the project's and city's needs and goals were being met. He indicated his last meeting with Caltrans was on Friday. He stated there was a local architect and the engineer present to answer questions. Commissioner Richards felt Building A started a trend he would be against. He was not opposed to two story on Highway 111 but the corner would have to be worked on by possibly cutting the corner architecturally to compensate from not taking all the space along Portola, but doing a treatment that would allow a greater viewing area approaching the corner. Mr. Oliphant stated that building A would be awned and occupied by Ron Gregory and Associates, which has the square footage he needs for his business and if it were to be moved in any way, it would impact two houses on San Marino; it was staffs goal to keep that as far away as possible. Camtissioner Richards did not feel it met with what the city was trying to accomplish on Portola--Portola was to be a street that was a less intensive use and had a problem with what this might do to the rest of the street. Mr. Oliphant felt this would not be a precedent because it was a superblock concept that would not be repeated dawn 14 NIINLYIES PALM DESERT PLAMING COM IISSICN AUGUST 15, 1989 Portola. Mr. Drell stated that the Core Area Specific Plan specifically defines this arrangement for incorporating the north side of Alessandro into the Superblock concept and shows it wrapping around because a single family home would not be appropriate on this corner on Portola. Cc mmissioner Richards felt the Palma Village plan had been incorporated incorrectly--a buffer zone and the north side of Alessandro was envisioned to be parking and landscaping. He stated that if there was going to be a change, it should not be "piece meal". Commissioner Downs asked if the building could be flopped over. Mr. Oliphant stated that it could, but was not sure if the depth from the houses was adequate; he stated that the parking in the middle was for the building across the street. Commissioner Downs suggested employees parking in the rear; Mr. Oliphant stated that was planned for employee parking for Ran Gregory's employees. Commissioner Richards stated that his concern was the building's positioning and its place with the neighbors and/or the use of Portola for commercial structures. Commissioner Jonathan suggested switching buildings A and B. Mr. Oliphant responded that it had been looked at, but there was 10,000 square feet in building A and only 4,000 in building B and it would not work out well because of encroachment onto the San Marino residents. Mr. Drell stated that he had a letter frcmm George and Margaret Buehl that he read (see attached exhibit B). MR. CHARLIE SWEEP, 74-595 Pepper Tree in Palm Desert, stated that they had been working since August, 1985, on the land assemblage project--there had been ten different parcels. He indicated that it had taken four years to get to where they are and timing was critical. He felt it would be a very good project. He noted that Ron Gregory would be the owner of building A. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. MEL GERRARD, 246 Camino Alturas in Palm Springs, owner of Jensen Building across Highway 111 and to the west three doors, as well as the building where Harvest Health Foods is, and was glad to be able to drive north on Portola and turn left on Alessandro. He was concerned about the second story and office professional fronting onto Highway 111 and flooding the market with rental units. He stated that one of his units was vacant 15 M]N[TTES PALM DESERT PLAMJIW, QMMIISSICN AUa]ST 15, 1989 one year and two months; he indicated that there were two vacancies in the Jensen building right now. MS. MARY KASMERR, 74-073 San Marino Circle, wanted to know about the visibility from San Marino Circle turning right or left onto Portola if there was a two story building on the corner. Mr. Drell stated that the building was setback 80 frcm the corner and turning right into San Marino Circle frcm Portola would be an almost exclusive right-turn lane and the corner has a line of sight criteria so that nothing more than three feet obstructs the view. Commissioner Jonathan stated that in terms of Commissioner Richards comments, he felt that the last project that had the same features, the residents expressed a preference for the proposed structure. He liked the project and commended the developer on putting together a project that would be a plus to the city. Commissioner Richards felt that the comnission was there to do correct planning and did not feel economics were the responsibility of the commission. If the plan was a good plan and met the general and specific plans, those were the issues that should guide the ; commission. He felt that if one portion of the street were changed, the whole street would be changed. He felt the concept of the superblock on this project was difficult to put together but putting a two story building on Portola that far from the corner would be bad planning and a bad precedent. He stated that no one said as part of the Palma Village Plan that two story would be put on Portola. He felt it was similar to the project on Fred Waring and Monterey and two story looked down into the backyards of the houses right behind it; the proposal would be two story and an elevation drop. Mr. Drell stated that the ordinance requires that no windows be visible facing those residential areas. Commissioner Richards noted there were people walking up and down to get to the offices. Mr. Drell stated that it would have to be screened by the architect to protect the line of sight. Chairman Erwood agreed with Commissioner Richards on the issue of building A going dawn Portola. The office professional's impact on residential was not envisioned that it would be protruding off Alessandro and heading down the street. He did not see why the building could not be flipped and something else be done with it. He indicated that the argument that really carried no weight was the one that said they worked on this for four years and commission should rush through it now because time was of the essence. 16 MINUTES PAIM DESERT PLANNING, CXNMISSICN AUGUST 15, 1989 Commissioner Richards felt it would be appropriate to ask the developer if he would like a continuance or would like to take his chances with the council. Mr. Drell stated that before the commission was a recatmendation to the city council and if the project were approved, it would still go to city council, or if denied it could be appealed to the council, or it could be approved with amendments. Commissioner Richards felt that there were two problems: building A if it were one story might mitigate his problem or if it were brought further east somehow. He was concerned with the long-term effects on Portola. He was also concerned with the stretching and twisting of the Specific Plan and Palma Village Plan. He stated that if staff was going to encourage encroachment of these areas, he wanted a restudy of the plan and a review of the whole issue. Commissioner Richards stated that the residents in that area were promised that commission would try to insulate them and do something for that area and buffer them. Mr. Diaz suggested that at the next meeting a copy of the text and the resolutions could be provided. He felt that the city was doing everything it could to increase the traffic and speed of traffic on Portola by making the street wider, by having a right-turn only on Highway 111, and by widening the entire street and making Portola less desirable as a residential development. Ccmnissioner Richards stated that he was concerned with long term effects and how the city set the tone on key critical areas was what was being done right now. He stated that he did not need a review of what was done previously because he was there and remembered what was discussed. He felt that putting two story structures on Portola without reopening the whole process was not in the spirit of the Palma Village Specific Plan. Chairman Erwood stated that when assurances were made to the residents on what would be permitted, he felt the residents had a right to trust the conmission on what would be permitted. He noted that a developer could wear out opposition by continuing and continuing the meetings, which had happened before. Cannissioner Jonathan agreed with that but asked where the residents were that were being negatively impacted. He stated that the intent of the Palma Village overlay was being met with the parking and felt the buildings were quite a distance from the residences. 17 V MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNIM OOMMISSIod AUGUST 15, 1989 Commissioner Richards stated that the problem was with the next building A that someone would want to develop down there. He indicated the city would try to help developers along Highway 111 acquire parcels along Alessandro that would be used for parking lots or greenbelts and the city would encourage development, especially on the north side. He stated that if it was going to be changed, the whole issue be brought up again and the residents be told what would be changed. Commissioner Jonathan viewed this the opposite way and felt that this could be a model of future development by saying, "look what this guy did, he does not have his building abutting a back yard--he found a way to put something together where there is parking and landscaping as a buffer." Commissioner Jonathan saw the development as a favorable precedent. Commissioner Downs stated that he understood Commissioner Richards concerns and still wished the building could be turned around or the last half of the building made one story, but did not feel this was the time or place for that. He felt it should be voted on. Mr. Oliphant stated that comments were made that it took some time to put together and felt that it would be presumptuous to ask for a quick decision. He stated that the urgency was created by staff and not then, although they were also anxious to proceed. He indicated that a health and safety problem existed and stated that public works was extremely concerned about that intersection. His intent was to create a model project and was proud to own that corner and make a statement. He said they took the superblock concept and consolidated the parking in the center for major users. He felt if the major users' parking was broken up to accommodate a relocation of a building, it would be poor planning to take it off Portola because it needed to be out with the street. He co Tiented that he had heard the commission complain about the parking being in the front and automobiles being visible, so he did not follow that and did not see it as a precedent because it was a superblock concept which would bring in a central entrance to serve the entire block. Portola was a major street, and would be wide and busy. He stated that the superblock concept ended at San Marino and they were designing to the city standards--there were no violations or changes or variances being requested. He stated it would be a beautiful project and heavily landscaped. He noted that Ron Gregory would occupy approximately half the building and expanding into the entire building over several years. He felt it was a good project. Chairman Erwood asked how close building A was to the nearest resident. Mr. Oliphant felt that it was over 60 feet to the property `3 9 18 MINUTES S PALM DESERT PLAMING, COM IISSICN AUGUST 15, 1989 r.. line. Mr. Drell stated that it was somewhere between 55'-60' ; 45' of parking lot, plus 6' of sidewalk and 5' of landscaping. Commissioner Downs noted it was probably 70 feet from the house itself. Chairman Erwood asked if elevations were basically the same between that lot and where building A would be located. Mr. Drell stated that it was going down hill in that direction and that the pad elevation of building A was three feet higher. Commissioner Downs noted that as part of the superblock concept this would keep the flood water in the streets. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony and asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Richards voted no). Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1377, recommending to city council approval of C/Z 89-13, PP 89-19, PM 25018 and initiation of the associated street vacation. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Richards voted no). i.r VIII. HISCECZANEXM A. Case No. PP 89-5 - NmIaIDRA PATEL, Applicant Presentation of a resolution per commission direction, approving a precise plan of design for a two story (23,235 square foot, 19,750 square foot net ) office building and negative declaration of environmental impact as it pertains thereto on a 42,400 square foot site at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Lupine Lane. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairman Erwood, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0-1 (Cou nissioner Downs abstained). Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairman Erwood, adopting Planning Como ssion Resolution No. 1378, approving PP 89-5 subject to conditions. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Downs abstained). 19 % W MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMNIISSICN AUGUST 15, 1989 U IX. ORAL W41U VICATICINS None. X. QNNIETIIS Commissioner Richards stated that he wanted a formal review of the policies and specific and general plans of the city. He felt that in the last few months there were movements away from those policies. He wanted it as part of the public record that he was requesting that staff review specific plans, that the city council be advised that at least one member of the commission was unhappy with the wavering from the specific plans that some of the commission members worked on, and if it was the pleasure of the council or the oommission to review those plans with the idea towards modification, then that should be done. Commissioner Downs suggested that the request be put in the form of a minute motion. a Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, instructing staff by minute motion to review the city specific and general plans. Carried 4-0. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Chairman Er wood adjourning the meeting. Carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at :13 P.M. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secre ATTEST• / RICHARD ERW00D, Chairman /tm 20 • Z-z-t-,r� - 1 EXHIQIT A ��� �i�.'�Gj�otirzc290.P�8:J'��S /.�1.9/l'1.fi-116� • .�7,l=-�.��� August 4 , 1989 AUG 2 1989 CUUMIrNily DE iP'•iE�+l DEPARIMENI Planning Commission C1rV :IF PALM DESERT CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert , California 92260 Ladies and Gentlemen: As you know , we have been trying to develop our 5 acre site for 4 years now. We won' t go through the lengthy history of it except to point out that we have consistently tried to do everything the City has asked for. The latest idea is reflected in the map before you , Tentative Tract 24214 amendment number 1 . This map reflects an overall master plan of residential develop- ment for a 40 acre piece of land owned by 4 separate entities. It enables all 4 to develop their sites autonomously while at the same time having an integrated look and feel. �► We have cooperated with our neighbor, United Savings, to a maximum extent, including losing at least one lot to conform to the master plan. Even though we will continue to cooperate with them, our intent is for our project to be separate and distinct from theirs. We feel certain from our numerous meetings that they feel the same way. In fact each site could stand on its own , even if the other is never built . The street, sewer and water system preliminary design has been done by Engineering Service Corporation', who represents both Pacific Theatres and United Savings , and both parties are satisfied with the design. The market is subject to rapid and dramatic change . A major key to surviving these changes is to maximize flexibility. There are guidelines established in the zoning code to maintain certain standards. One issue that must be addressed is two story houses. The PR5 zone allows two story houses , the market frequently demands two story houses , therefore we may decide to build some two story houses. We cannot predetermine where those houses might be or how many there might be . We can guarantee however that the number , location', and design parameters will conform to the requirements of the City' s PR5 zone . %NW -1 - Page 2 Planning Commission August 4', 1989 We feel we are close to a solution for this very awkward piece of property. We applaud the efforts of the City staff to bring these different parties to the same table in a spirit of harmony and cooperation. All that remains is for your body to allow us to proceed under the parameters of the zoning code . Sincerely , PACIFIC THEATERS , Inc. j BY: George eiter GEK/cg 4 c EXHIBIT B %NW August 15 , 1989 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission Re : Case No . C/Z 89-13, PP 89-19, PM 25018 We , the undersigned, do protest against the proposed change of zone from R-3 and R-1 to O. P. in above case . Protest to be withdrawn if the following provisions are included in the final permit plan : 1 . Construct a minimum 6 foot high wall and City approved landscaping between said wall and curb on the south side of San Marino Circle , eastward from Portola Ave . , to contain the parking lot . 2 . Insure that there is no entrance to or exit from r, the parking lot on San Marino Circle . 3 . Provide roadway for a left turn access at Alessandro to the Arco AM/PM facility for north bound vehicle traffic from Hiway 111 on Portola Ave . This will substantially reduce traffic in the residental zones northeast and northwest of Alessandro . Georgo'�-'C 'Buehl 4. Margaret A. Buehl 74-022 San Marino Circle Palm Desert , Ca . 92260 568-2600