Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0505 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - MAY 5, 1992 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE � * * * � * * * * * � * * * * * * * * * * * � � � I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Spiegel led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock Chair erson , P Bob Downs Sabby Jonathan Bob Spiegel Members Absent: Jim Richards Staff Present: Ray Diaz Jeff Winklepleck Kandy Allen Dick Folkers Phil Drell Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: �"` Consideration of the April 21, 1992 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, approving the April 21, 1992 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz indicated there were no April 23 city council items directly impacting planning commission decisions. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR None. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. RV 91-5 - MR. ROBERT BARBOZA, Applicant Request for approval to park a recreational vehicle and a trailer in the front yard area at 74-691 C3ndlewood �rw. Street. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 Mr. Diaz indicated that staff would like the matter continued � two weeks to allow staff to meet with the applicant and discuss his new plans. He noted that Mr. Barboza was present with those plans, but staff had not had a chance to review them. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if Mr. Barboza would address the commission. MR. ROBERT BARBOZA stressed that the request was for a RV trailer only, not a motor home and trailer. He concurred with the continuance. Mr. Diaz stated that the change was noted. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one. Chairperson Whitlock asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing RV 91-5 to May 19, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 4-0. B. Continued Case No. CUP 92-2 and Draft Environmental � Impact Report - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit and certification of the draft environmental impact report pertaining thereto, for construction of civic center ballfields and corporate yard on the northerly vacant third of 72 acres acquired by Palm Desert for development of a civic center park. The project involves the development of four lighted ballfields, a corporate yard, concession stand, restrooms, parking, and other recreation facilities. Mr. Diaz clarified that the wording on the agenda calls for a corporate yard, that was how it was advertised and that was the project. The plan before the commission was a modification of that original plan and did not include a corporate yard and because of legal requirements, the corporate yard was on the agenda and the public notices. Mr. Diaz stated that the matter was continued to allow an 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 �, opportunity for staff to meet with representatives of the Vineyards area and Monterey Country Club Homeowners Association. As a result of that meeting, there were certain changes made to the plan. He apologized to the homeowners of the Monterey Country Club--there was apparently to be another meeting on this plan and there was some confusion because of the drawings and the size of the ball diamonds. He indicated that the ball diamonds being considered for construction called for a Bronco/Pony size. Bronco/Pony was different then Little League; Bronco/Pony called for 80 foot base pads and 250 foot blinds; Little League was totally different. The ball diamonds here were not for the smallest age groups. He said that the full size ball diamonds were not needed because they had them at the college and at the high school; they did not need the smaller ball diamonds ( 60 foot) base pads because they were provided at the high school. In terms of the changes made to the original plan, he said there had been parking and access along Magnesia Falls. During discussions with Monterey Country Club representatives and the Vineyards, they indicated they did not want access into Magnesia Falls or even parking in the vicinity. All the parking in that area had been eliminated. The corporation yard was eliminated and replaced with date groves. Part of the corporate yard area would have shuffleboard, bacci ball, and horseshoe pits. Both the bacci ball and horse shoe pit area would be covered with �"" the light coming down from the covers and would not be a problem there. There would also be a restroom and control area, although he felt there would be mostly adults involved in these activities. He stated there would be four Bronco/Pony fields, no parking or access off Magnesia Falls Drive except for one emergency access point on the westerly property line and parking would stop approximately 100 feet south of Magnesia Falls where there would be a turn around area and a parking area of approximately 492 spaces. One access would be off San Pablo and a different parking area would be for the bacci ball, shuffle board and horseshoe pits. No parking would be allowed along the roadway going to the parking area. A question came up of moving the access road and he felt this was not acceptable because of traffic crossing an active area similar to the finding made at Palm Desert High School . If the road were moved, there would be a situation of the vehicles crossing the park area. Staff recommended the access road as presented on the map. He felt that two issues would prohibit the baseball users from using the eastern lot: the parents themselves would be there and people would have to climb over mounds to get into the ballfield area. He noted they also cut off the access except for emergency access onto Magnesia Falls. Staff felt the wr 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 proposal was a good plan and met most of the concerns of the ,,,� ' residents. ', He again stated there was no access from Magnesia Falls either to the bacci ball area or the ballfields; no parking along Magnesia Falls; the ball diamonds had been designed and he felt the date grove and distance would eliminate the noise and mounding would help take care of any potential noise problem. He stated there was a condition of approval in the CUP permit where the city commits to spending up to $20,000 to correct any problems with the driving range lights at COD or the proposed ballfield lights. He noted the city did not have to do that, but were willing to do that as a result of the meetings with the Monterey Country Club and Vineyards residents. Staff recommended the plan presented and did not recommend any kind of vehicular traffic between the ball diamonds and connecting to the bacci ball courts and other areas. He felt this plan solved most of the concerns and points made by the residents. Staff recommended that two resolutions be adopted: the first certifying the environmental impact report and the second approving the conditional use permit and within that conditional use permit all the conditions of approval setforth within the EIR would be required. He indicated that included that Magnesia Falls be terminated currently 70-100 feet of the westerly property line ' of the city' s project; that up to $20, 000 be spent to mitigate � the lighting concerns raised regarding the driving range and potentially the baseball field. Chairperson Whitlock asked if Magnesia Falls would remain a paved street, only terminated so that traffic could not flow through. Mr. Diaz concurred. He explained that there was a request to vacate Magnesia Falls, but in order to vacate Magnesia Falls, the circulation element of the general plan would have to be amended. The city was currently going through a general plan update and that issue could be discussed separately. He indicated that traffic would be stopped 70-100 feet easterly of the city' s project, but not totally because the emergency access was needed. Chairperson Whitlock asked if the Bronco/Pony fields limited play to only a certain age level . Mr. Diaz replied no, that the fields would be skinned infields; he stated there was a request that only children and no adults be allowed the use of the fields. Staff did not recommend that and felt there were rules regarding the operation of the park and adults were responsible individuals. He said that if problems with adults developed, then adult play would stop and indicated that the leagues would have priority, but right now he was opposed to 4 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 �, banning adult use. He noted that the fields were bigger, but the base pads could be shortened. Chairperson Whitlock asked who would control the scheduling of the use of the park; Mr. Diaz replied the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park ', District, which would be present when their community center was built and would be handled in a manner similar to what was done at Cook Street. If a problem occurred, the city would take over. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the date preserve trees being symmetrical; Mr. Diaz replied yes, they would be 30 feet on center and would ultimately produce dates. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there would be walking paths through the grove; Mr. Diaz felt there would ultimately be some. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. WAYNE GURALNICK, general counsel for Monterey Country Club, 74-399 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, stated that on the one hand they wanted the ballfields in for the children and on the other hand Monterey Country Club would like this in another location. Within the last two weeks they had tried to meet with Mr. Diaz and staff and "'�"' did meet once and were presented a plan and Commissioner Richards was present and good, informative discussions took place as a working base. He felt the city should vacate Magnesia Falls; there were discussions of berms and moving the ballfields south, and he thought things looked good where a compromise could be worked out. He stated there was going to be a subsequent meeting with all the representatives there and that meeting never took place. He did receive a plan and again had the discussion on the vacating of Magnesia Falls. At some point in time on Friday he was told that there was an error on that map and received a partially drawn-in plan on Monday. He felt that they never really had the meaningful discussions that were important to get these matters resolved. He said that they were trying to work with the city on a compromise. He provided commission with a plan his group put together and felt it worked and accomplished a compromise. He indicated they were trying to move the ballfields south and away and to use the date palms as a further barrier. The only difference between their plan and the plan by staff was that the ballfields had been moved. He did not feel there was a need to have the access road around the ballfields to the bacci court. �, 5 MINUTES , PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 He stated that the bacci ball was to the right of San � Pablo and more parking was there then needed and while their plan was not the only alternative, it accomplished a compromise and gave a quiet enjoyment to these ' homeowners. He noted there were no guarantees on the lights or noise and adult play would not help these people when they wanted to have a nice, quiet discussion in their backyards. He asked that 1 ) planning staff be directed to proceed with the alternatives suggested; or 2 ) continue the discussions in that regard. He did not feel it should be just pushed through. He stated that the draft EIR was deficient and they had written comments ' to that effect and felt the alternatives had not been properly discussed. He felt the ballfields were probably closer than they were 2-3 weeks ago and now had a road around it. He stated that there was no real use for Magnesia Falls and while this might not be the process to , vacate it, it could be barricaded until it was vacated. That would assure that it could not later be used as a parking lot or some other use. He felt that a compromise and better plan was needed. MR. BOB REARDON, stated that his property was across the wall in Monterey Country Club, and that he was in the meeting with Mr. Diaz and staff and requested that the � planning commission direct staff to negotiate in good faith with them and come up with a compromise plan. They made considerable progress at the meeting and then now the things they thought had been agreed upon were not agreed to. He felt that what the planning commission was being asked to vote on was quite different then the one discussed in a preliminary way to try and work out. He felt this was not right. He stated that the staff should be instructed to negotiate in good faith because they were not doing that. Mr. Diaz stated that 1 ) the meeting they had was not a matter of negotiation and when he sits down and discusses things with people he says what he means and means what he says. The plan before commission met the requirements and answered most of the objections raised. Staff never agreed to vacate Magnesia Falls, but were stopping Magnesia Falls were it is. He noted that the public works director brought forth a plan which called for the baseball diamonds to be moved further east and Mr. Diaz said no. The residents to the east should not have the ball diamonds moved closer to them. He noted that the proposed plan by Mr. Guralnick moved all four of them and one a lot closer to the Vineyards. The plan from staff had the 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 �,,, ballfields where they were before. He again stated that the parking and access to Magnesia Falls was eliminated and did not feel he sat down in bad faith with them. MR. GENE O'BRIEN, 260 Castellana South. He stated that he liked kids and had five and eight grandchildren. He indicated that baseball had always been his favorite sport. He also liked apple pie and the American flag, but wanted to remind commission that this hearing was not whether they like baseball or whether or not they were being fair to the children. This hearing was about a mind-set decision that was profoundly offensive to the nearby residents to build a sports complex practically in their front yard. They had tried for over a year, without success, to persuade Mr. Diaz to enter into a dialog to arrive at a solution suitable to all concerned. The only thing offered were some possible mitigating factors. He assured Mr. Diaz that this little bit of sugar did not make the medicine go down in a most delightful way. He noted that it was rumored that residents of adjacent cities had contributed money toward this project and if true, he wanted to know how much money, from whom, and if there were any strings attached. If the citizens of the neighboring communities really � wanted to help, they could have two sport areas, each with two fields located near or astride the boundaries. The problem of blowsand had been given as a reason to not build this complex any place other than the presently proposed site. The planning commission to his knowledge had not been reluctant to approve land use for single family homes and condo/golf course developments in blow sand areas. He stated that the Director of Community Development on September 7, 1989 sent a notice of hearing to open discussions concerning zoning in the north sphere. That notice included a zoning map showing planned community development use north of Country Club Drive and west of Cook Street. He referred commission to the map and Ordinance No. 277 in 1981 and in particular the paragraph stating the purpose and criteria of planned community development. He stated that the director had not always been of the opinion that the site now being considered was the only possible site for a sports complex. He felt the consideration of alternate sites had been too quickly glossed over and enhancement of the value of adjacent properties should always be the aim of any development. He also felt this project would degrade the value of the property on the south side of the Monterey Country Club community. He questioned who � � I MINUTES I PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION '��, MAY 5, 1992 , besides children' s leagues would be using the proposed �1i , project and for what purposes: rock concerts, carnivals, etc. He also asked who would make the rules now and in ' the future and how the rules would be enforced. He felt these guestions should be answered in writing before one spade of earth was turned. With the proliferation of the ' many fine art galleries and the cultural growth of the community, he felt the day was coming in the not too ', distant future that a fine art museum would want to be ' added and he felt an excellent location would be adj acent ' to the proposed new library. He said God bless the I children and long live the Little League, but requested ', that the commission consider the residents also. He ', indicated that the older residents had paid their dues and it was an unqualified transgression against them to ' plan a project like this in the center of a tax paying, ', voting, substantially senior retirement community. Mr. Diaz responded that he did not believe any of us were paying dues and everyone was part of a society and noted that his own child was at UCLA and he was no longer a coach or involved in baseball, but were all part of society and should continue that way. As far as the blow sand area was concerned, he indicated there was a difference between a private developer taking an economic risk in an area and � having the profit/loss ratio in terms of decisions he/she makes versus using public funding. He noted staff was constantly chided that the private sector was more efficient than the public sector; in this case the public sector was placing this needed facility in an area where it is needed and ; at the lowest cost in terms of infrastructure. In the future there might be parks needed in the blow sand area and the city had land in that area and as development takes place, blow sand would be less of a problem. He stated that this facility was needed here and needed now. As far as the neighboring cities contributing, there was an agreement between neighboring cities similar to the tri-cities fire and police agreements. He noted that Palm Desert was contributing to the construction of a children' s museum and those cities were contributing to the construction of sports facilities and the maintenance. He stated that the public sector was being efficient and being chided for being too efficient. Mr. Diaz felt these fields and the plans before commission had nothing to do with the north sphere zoning and future annexations. He indicated the plans solved most of the major concerns. Staff continued to recommend approval of the proposed plan. 8 ,� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 ,;,,�„� MS . TERESA SILVA, Aster Drive in Palm Desert, stated that she has an eight year old son who loves baseball and a husband that coaches. She indicated there was not enough space and felt that this was all political . Baseball facilities were needed and they were also voters and parents, and thanked Mr. Diaz for supporting them. MR. VAN TANNER stated that his two sons were present and aged 11 and 9 . He noted that his 11 year old was playing ' until 10:00 at night because there were not enough fields to get him home and in bed by 8:30 p.m. He stated that he understood the problems with Monterey Country Club and was not part of the negotiating program; he was just ' saying that he wanted the fields for next year. He encouraged the negotiations to continue if they were needed, but noted that the fields were needed as soon as ' possible. MR. BURT HAWKS, Monterey Country Club resident, informed commission that he had not been involved in the ' discussions with staff and noted that at the last meeting the issue of trespass light was raised. He said that Mr. Diaz indicated there was approximately 300-400 feet between the lights and Monterey. When he questioned �, that, Mr. Diaz confirmed that it was about 150 feet. He asked if he was correct in that. Mr. Diaz stated that the lights would be over 300 feet away ' and the lights closest to Monterey would be facing away from them. Mr. Hawks asked if the lights had been moved since the last meeting. Mr. Diaz stated that the point was that the light standards ' set forth guaranteed no spillover lighting. Between the park ' and the lights would be an 80 foot street, a buffer area, and the spill over lighting would be taken care of. Commissioner Downs clarified that the lights had not been moved. Mr. Hawks stated that he sent two letters and handed them ' to Chairperson Whitlock; he indicated that he sent them ' to the city council . He noted that a lighting engineer ' was brought in at the last meeting and he gave them specific figures of 300 and 400 feet and he agreed that those figures, if true, would not be a real big problem, but when he got up at the meeting and said that it did not look like 300-400 feet, and it wasn't, he asked now v,,,, 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 twice in writing what the trespass lighting was: the �p records of the meeting showed that the trespass lighting was very low because that expert was given the 300-400 foot number. He felt that the lighting expert was given the wrong number and it was still wrong and he felt they were entitled to find out how the trespass lighting ' changed from the time it was given to them incorrectly. Commissioner powns stated that 6 x 30 was 180 and the road was another 30, which equaled 210 feet, so there was approximately 250 feet. , Mr. Diaz again stated there would not be any trespass lighting and the standards indicated that and required that, whether there were 250 feet or 50 feet from the ballfields. He felt the video showed that could be done and was being done. ' MR. MARC HOMME, 30 year desert resident, stated that he remembered when Monterey did not exist and when his father and Bill Bone developed Monterey, there were similar concerns from the citizens around it about the same things and questioning the quality of life and what would go on. As a condition of approval, Monterey Avenue was made a major artery that caused a tremendous amount of traffic. Magnesia Falls was dedicated as a through � street as a condition to the approval of Monterey Country Club that everyone moved into Monterey knowing that. He indicated that he served on the Indian Wells committee two years ago to develop fields. He had meetings with Mr. Diaz and fields were discussed for the whole valley. The location of fields had been investigated right and left and after these fields were built within five or ten years there would be more fields in north Palm Desert to cover the growth of that area. This was an important site and should be located here. He said that he was present at the last meeting and there were objections because of the corporate yard and to be fair, staff had done a lot to mitigate the negative circumstances going on here. These would not be "rinky-dink" fields with lights around them. There were date palms around it, new technology in lighting, and right now there were the golf course lights, the college lights, the YMCA and this whole park was developed for public usage. He asked how many people had been to the fields at Cook Street and investigated the impact of what was going on--he said there hasn't been any impact. He felt a lot of this reaction was fear of the unknown and he noted there were 1200 homes in Monterey Country Club and just because the 10 „� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ' MAY 5, 1992 �, board of directors was a group of five or six people ' against this project, it did not mean that everyone was , against it--he believed there were 1200 homes and did not believe there had been a referendum of those owners to ' get their position. He felt this just effected �chose ' closest to Magnesia Falls Drive and those same people ' didn' t want the street dedicated to go through like it ' was when they bought their property to go through and the same people have the biggest objection to it. The people ' who live in this community, mow the lawns at Monterey Country Club, serve the tables, built the homes, and work �i the restaurants that people from Monterey Country Club ', patronize; a lot of those people have children and a lot ' of people at Monterey Country Club recognize that. He I stated that his parents have a home in Monterey Country � Club and he loves it, but he felt it was time the community got together and did what was socially proper for everyone because the problem with this country could not be one group of people saying it ' s fine but go 'i somewhere else. Those kids who could not play ball might ; end up being the ones going to Monterey Country Club five years from now and breaking into homes and he felt that many social ills happened at Monterey Country Club ; because of irresponsibility of trying to do something that was best for the common good. He asked if the last � two weeks hadn' t shown something of the need in this ' country to have social conscientiousness raised about a lot of these issues. He couldn't believe that with all the work staff had done that they had not done everything ', possible to make a nice ballfield and facility that impacted on this center. He hoped that the commission ' 'I approved it and that it would be built as soon as ' , possible--not three or four years from now. jMr. Diaz commented that letters from throughout Monterey I Country Club had been received, not just from the Castellana area. i MR. DON OSGOOD, 317 Castellana, he stated that he wished everyone would speak factual about this because while there was great clapping and some fine youth present, 90$ of the people present would not even be able to use the I�� field based upon the design and were for ages 13 and above. ' i Mr. Diaz stated that unless the condition that the Monterey Country Club wanted restricting use to adults was added, i adults could play slow pitch softball on these fields because ;�, 1 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 they would be skinned infields and 60 foot base pads could be � put in. He indicated he was glad to hear Mr. Osgood speak in favor of allow adult use of these fields. Mr. Osgood said that he was not talking about the adults, but about the youth. He stated that he was talking about Little League and the first thing he heard now was that the field and size eliminates based on the design the situation of younger Little League groups. Mr. Diaz explained that Little League and boys baseball like the Babe Ruth League and American Legion Ball were different organizations. Within each of those organizations there were different distances between home plate, the pitchers mound and the base pads. The base pads here for boys baseball were for Bronco/Pony and included Pinto, Bronco, and Mustang. With the skinned infield all age groups could play: Pinto, Mustang, Bronco, and Pony. The fields there was a shortage of in this community and adjacent communities were the Bronco/Pony distances, which was what was proposed, but less could be played. As far as adult softball was concerned, fast pitch , and slow pitch could be played on 60 foot base pads and the , distance from the pitchers mound to home plate was the same as for Little League and Pinto ball, so all the groups could play here. There couldn't be bigger kids playing on smaller ,,,� fields, but there could be smaller kids playing on bigger fields. Mr. Osgood wanted clarification that children from ages 8 to 13 would also be able to play on these fields with the proposed design. Mr. Diaz replied yes. Mr. Osgood asked if there was any allowance for a speaker system of any nature to be allowed to be used on the fields. Mr. Diaz stated that a condition of approval would be added on the conditional use permit that no public speaker systems would be permitted on any of the fields. Mr. Osgood indicated that he passed by a field in South Ontario that had the hoods and were directed downward and after the speech from the lighting expert, he said that everyone addressed the downward lights, but no one said anything about the amount of lumens that come out from the field left/right, north/south and up. He felt that 12 ,� MINUTES , PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION . MAY 5, 1992 ', with the four fields and the amount of lumens involved, � the would be able to la cards on their y p y golf course. He stated that he would like that question addressed and asked if they had studied 100 yards from the fields, 250 ' yards, or 500 yards from the fields to determine the ' amount of lumens that would actually be emanated from ' that many lights. , Mr. Diaz replied that they had, and the concern they had was ' like the fields in Poway, where the light dropped 35 feet beyond the outfield fence, there was a creek and people went � out there and could not see and would fall into the creek. He ' stated that yes it was studied and the spillover lights and ' lighting standards were placed here and the city of Irvine was ' as picky as Palm Desert and that was why they were used. He stated there would not be spillover lighting. Mr. Osgood stated that he was at a field in Ontario and it had a shutter and could be seen for miles because of the amount of lumens emanating from it. ' Mr. Diaz stated that the video showed where the lights would ' drop and he could not help Ontario' s problem. ' Mr. Osgood indicated that his concern was the amount of �""'" lumens generated, not the amount of light directed down on the field. He stated that he would like some numbers and if possible a study on the amount of lumens generated from the four fields when lit at the proposed height drawn with a straight line drawn down; he felt everyone would be greatly surprised at the amount of lumens that would show up from the fields. Chairperson Whitlock suggested that Mr. Osgood give the community director' s secretary his address so that when that information was obtained, it could be sent to him. Mr. Osgood , said that he would appreciate that. ' A gentleman from the audience spoke up and asked about the ' definition of a skinned infield. Mr. Diaz stated that there ' would be no grass, it would be a brick dust infield; it would be easier to maintain and the base pads could be lengthened or shortened. He said that the brick dust would not be blowing in the wind because otherwise the game would have to be stopped because it would be in the ball players eyes. MR. DON JOHNSON, New York Avenue in Palm Desert, stated that he had lived here seven years and had two boys � 13 , MINUTES ' PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 playing in the Palm Desert Youth Sports and had also been � involved on the board for five years and at the present time was the president of the league, so felt he should ' speak up. He indicated there was a need for these fields , and there were over 1250 kids, 92 teams and at the ' present time the kids are playing until 10:00-10:30 p.m. , and if these four new fields were available, the kids could start at 6:00 p.m. and play until 8:00 or 8:30 and get the regulation games in and only play one game ' instead of double hitters per night. He said they would ' have time to do their homework and would get their rest. As far as the lighting was concerned, he felt the City of ', Palm Desert was doing the best they could and were ' looking for the best for the City of Palm Desert, Monterey Country Club and the kids/families. The plan situated the fields like Cook Street and would give them a snack bar possibly in the middle and everyone a chance ' to view all the games by having the fields situated as , they were. There was easy access in and out and he ; stressed that by January next year when they start their try-outs he hoped the fields would be in. MS. MARY HENDBERT, 74-105 Rutledge, stated that she was a tax payer and had been here eight and a half years. She now had a seven and a half year old son and was a ,�; single mom. She indicated that she needed somewhere to have her child that was safe and these programs were needed. She stated that she was a step-grandma now and wanted to think that Monterey Country Club residents would like a place for their grandchildren, nieces or nephews to play. There were problems with drugs and kids needed these type of programs. She felt the kids were more important than the parents and stated that she lived across from Palm Desert Middle School and Lincoln School and indicated they had ball games there at night and while she did not know the distances she was not bothered. She could hear some of the noise and could see the lights and did not think the ones there were as good as the ones being proposed. She stated that she could still have company and be in her yard and do things. She asked that the youth be considered and with the palm trees blocking out the field, she could not see the problem. She noted that this was a growing area and when she came here there was nothing for the youth to do and now that there were programs, they should be supported. MR. STEVEN BENNETT, a resident of 48-101 Silver Spur since 1981. He stated that he had two boys present aged 14 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ', MAY 5, 1992 �, five and seven that were actively involved in soccer and baseball and other programs in the city and he did not want his kids going through what Mr. Tanner' s kids were doing and playing baseball at 10:30 p.m. He said that if these fields were not approved, his kids in the near future would have to do the same. He indicated there were over 1200 kids in the program and was concerned ', about the lack of fields in the community. He stated that he was a board member of the YMCA Board of Directors and he had a letter of endorsement from the YMCA that he read to the planning commission from Chuck Sivella, President of the Family YMCA of the Desert, "The Board of Directors of the Family YMCA of the Desert would like to ' endorse the plans to build more baseball fields on the ' north side of the Palm Desert Civic Center Park. YMCA ' was working with the youth' s baseball and soccer groups ' in the cove communities and is aware of the need for more ' fields to accommodate these activities. We feel that the city has planned these fieTds and they are the only solution to a rapidly growing problem of overcrowded and over used facilities. These fields need to be built and need to be lighted to be effective in solving this problem. They would also enhance the cove community park, which we feel will be over used without these additional green spaces to be used for all activities, � special events, etc. " He said there were now baseball , teams using the existing park space directly east of the YMCA facility to practice as no fields are available. These teams were at a safety factor as no backstops were ', provided and it was very close to the existing playground ' at the Y. This also created a very major parking problem at the YMCA during the hours of 4:30 and 7:00 p.m. when the YMCA was very, very busy with its activities. The board of directors heavily recommend these proposed , fields and urged the commission' s support. ' Mr. Burt Hawks stated that he did not think when Monterey ' and Mr. Guralnick got up to speak that they were saying ' not to build diamonds. What they were asking was for a ' chance to get together so that the diamonds could be there, children and adults could play, but every ' precaution should be taken without stopping the diamonds and at least talk to them and find out if there are things which would mitigate it. He asked if they couldn't talk quietly across the table and settle this thing to the best ability. The lighting had to be good for baseball and perhaps if the diamonds were moved 50 feet it would help. ,�, 15 MINUTES ' PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 Mr. Diaz stated that over a year and a half ago he asked � representatives from the Monterey Country Club Homeowners Association specifically what they wanted and was told they wanted an environmental impact report because they did not know what they wanted unless one was done. There was now an environmental impact report and mitigation measures spelled out and were being implemented. Staff indicated at that time the environmental impact report guaranteed nothing, and indicated to them that statements of overriding considerations could be adopted, but which were not being done in this case. ' He said that this project had been delayed over a year and a half waiting for the EIR. He stated that the ball diamonds could not be moved farther south because the tennis courts were there; they could be moved further east, but he would not ' recommend moving them further east because there were homeowners over there. MS. CANDACE SMITH, 77-455 Delaware, stated that she felt that many of the parents had also paid their dues. Besides being tax payers, most of them were double income families and did not have a lot of luxuries and conveniences and might never have them. A lot of stress and pressure of running a small business with the overhead was difficult and they were doing everything they could just to pay the basic bills to get their kids � a decent education. They just wanted them to have a life and part of that was playing and as far as moving the fields out of town, a country club should be in the country and having it in the city they needed to consider that the city would grow and the city would have needs. She indicated that she had three children playing baseball and when baseball season came around, everything stopped because running back and forth from the ball fields, they live out by Washington Street, was just a rat race. Moving fields outside of the community she did not feel was practical. A lot of the younger people with children were serving the older residents and adding to their comforts and luxuries. She said they were just trying to do the best they could for their children. She felt that if these people loved the children, they should give a little and show it. MR. BOB REARDON stated that he was at a meeting a year and a half ago and he felt they did tell Mr. Diaz several things they wanted. He noted that Jim Richards was the only person from the group that was at the meeting last week and asked for clarification regarding if the plan on the wall was the same including the mitigating measures 16 ,�; MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 �, discussed and thought that had been agreed to, and Mr. Diaz was supposed to come back to them and they did not have that meeting and here it was and it was different. Mr. Diaz indicated that it was different and as to a reein or 9 9 not, staff did not vote and all he could do was tell anyone what he was going to recommend. There may have been discussion regarding vacating Magnesia Falls and thought he indicated that he would not recommend that. Mr. Guralnick offered another alternative that Magnesia Falls be closed and not opened. Mr. Diaz stated that he said no to that ' suggestion. Rs far as the ball diamonds were concerned, they were where they were before; the corporation yard was ' eliminated, the bacci ball, shuffle board and the horseshoe , pits were not discussed at that meeting. So yes, it was different. Did it meet the concerns and issues raised--he ' felt that it did and obviously Monterey Country Club felt it did not. Mr. Diaz indicated that he felt the original proposal met the city' s requirements as well as the ; requirements of CEQA in terms of not providing a significant adverse impact on the environment. He felt the plan had come a long way with elimination of the corporate yard, parking, and access. ;�, Mr. Reardon asked why they couldn' t have just got together to have a meeting and gone over this--why get hit with this in front of all these people. ' Mr. Diaz replied that this was a public hearing and everyone present had a right to see the plans also. , Mr. Reardon stated that there were people present who were very eloquent and were very right in trying to have activities for their children and Monterey Country Club agreed with that. What they disagreed with was the manner in which this was being done. They were not being heard properly or treated properly. He did not feel this was right. Mr. Guralnick stated that he wanted to summarize what he believed was the position of Monterey Country Club and their concerns to have the plans modified: 1 ) move the ballfields south; 2 ) the access road should be deleted; 3 ) vacate Magnesia Falls Road, understanding that might take time to do, and in the meantime barricade it; 4) restrict the park use to children only; and 5 ) restrict time usage to 9:00 p.m. He stated they were not trying to get rid of the ballfields. ;,,�, 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 MR. PAUL VOLKS, Santa Rosa Circle in Palm Desert, stated � that he had been in the desert for 11 years. He indicated that he had been coming to these meetings for over six years and the residents asking for ballfields have been asking for fields for that long. Each and every time they have asked, special interest groups objected and had placed restrictions on what they wanted the city to do, and asked the city to move them out of their area and do specific things with their lighting, now they were asking for more restrictions. The people who had been asking for the ballfields had not asked the city for any restrictions; all they had asked for were the fields. These people had offered on other occasions to build the ballfields if the city would give them a place. They had offers of ballfields being built by people who were building new living areas, but they didn' t quite meet the restrictions being placed on it by other communities and had been deleted. Projects had come and gone. He stated that he had 13 years of parks and recreation experience and from what he had looked at here, the City of Palm Desert had built a park that was complete except for activities for children to play ball on. He felt the ballfields and the way they would be constructed, including the lighting to be put in, would be the best there was to offer. He stated that more and „� more restrictions were being asked for, but these residents were still asking for ballfields and have asked ' enough. He indicated that the city should approve the plans and put this ball park in use and did not see where any restrictions should be placed on them other than people enjoying them. MR. JOHN RANDALL, Monterey Country Club, stated that he had lived there less than one year and felt it was interesting to hear the discussion. He said that his street was one of the ones that would be affected by the ball park. He stated that he strongly supported the need : for ball parks in this community and was a former adult fast-pitch softball player himself and felt adults needed to play as well as children. He indicated that he did not want to delay the project any further, but felt that an additional meeting should take place with staff, Monterey Country Club and representatives from the children' s leagues that would play there and talk about other alternatives and possibly reach a satisfactory compromise. He felt that one more meeting might satisfy some of the residents in Monterey Country Club and the ones who want to play baseball in the park. 18 �p MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ' MAY 5, 1992 ;� MR. BILL THOMAS, Astor Street in Palm Desert, said that the children anywhere needed worthy support, not worthy opponents. He stated that he grew up in this valley with nothing to do and all he had seen prosper or even grow ' were golf courses, driving ranges, and country clubs. He felt it was time for places for their children to play and have recreation. He hoped that this time they would be heard and small interest groups would not get in the way. ' MS. JANET BRODY, Monterey Country Club, stated that she and her husband had worked over 40 years at very hard jobs and professions in order to retire. She indicated that her husband was not totally retired and serviced the community as a physician part time. They were not against children or grandchildren or ballfields or apple pie or motherhood and stated that she resented having Monterey Country Club residents being accused of not being caring people. She felt they were caring people � and 99$ of the ownership had come from somewhere else ' from careers and professions that were hard work. They were parents and did have basketball and baseball and soccer and car pooled and started out with tough times and saved until they could retire. She did not want that �, taken away from them now. She said that they contribute ', to the community as do other people in Monterey Country Club and stated that they were not opponents. She wanted the situation settled as best as possible, but felt they should not be placed in a bad light and were honest, hard ' working tax paying people and hoped the planning commission would advise the young people that they were , not against them or give that impression. As stated by Dr. Randall, she felt that another meeting might be appropriate. She again stated that they had worked hard to get what they had and wanted to be able to enjoy it. MR. VICTOR VILLENEUVE, 43-349 B Martini Court in the , Vineyards tract, stated that he represented his neighbors in the Vineyards. He indicated that he had been involved , in the process of the civic center development for a long time and had to endure the annoyance of the driving range lights from the college since 1986. He felt that what was being asked for was nothing. They were asking for nothing more than the quiet enjoyment of their homes. ' The people wanting the recreational facilities for the youth of the community was wonderful and there wasn' t a person present who would not support that; however, they were asking that the city provide them with ballfields ,,,,,, 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 and sports facilities and that was okay, but the w� residents ' needs were just as valid as theirs. He stated that he resented the idea of a value judgement being placed on them or that their needs were more important that the residents. He stated that if any of those people lived where he lived they might feel as he does. These people would be able to take their children and drop them off and if they were not involved in coaching could leave and go home and pick up their children later. The residents of Monterey and the Vineyards would have to endure the annoyance of the lighting or noise every day, 24 hours per day. If he proposed an annoying type of development next to Mr. Tanner' s, Mr. Johnson' s, or Mr. Homme ' s home, they would feel differently. He was not saying the ballfields should be eliminated and recognized the need, but he felt the EIR was flawed and did not properly investigate alternative sites and did not even investigate an alternative site in south Palm Desert near Mr. Bennet ' s home on Silver Spur at Ironwood Park. He stated that he was not convinced the lighting could be properly installed and mitigated. They were forced to see the video and the attitude of the city had been here it is, how about it, instead of coming to them years ago as requested to work with the neighborhood and periphery residents. He said that a number of things were ,,� discussed in the meeting with Mr. Diaz on April 14 and he had not been contacted since that meeting. Subsequently, Mr. Guralnick and Monterey Country Club had been in contact. He last spoke to Mr. Diaz last Friday and was told a plan had been developed; when he came in Monday morning to look at it, it was still on the drawing board. He felt that one more attempt to iron out the differences might be in order before approving the project without somehow meeting the needs of the residents. He stated that when the proponents of the youth activities spoke the residents were described as an interest group, he felt that was the pot calling the kettle black. They were a special interest group, too. He indicated that he wanted to get beyond all of that because he could not be down here at city hall every few months of year after years for the next seven years to try and convince the city that the residents needs were valid. He said that Mr. Walton of Wallmart was quoted as saying that you have to listen to the people. He felt that was what the city should be doing. He said that the city should have come to them seven years ago and there probably wouldn' t have been the acrimony present. He stated that he would like to see the bacci ball and horseshoe pits eliminated; in 20 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 the meeting of April 14 he asked Mr. Diaz what type of �`�" activities were planned in the area that was once proposed to hold the maintenance yard--he was told bacci ball and horseshoe pits. He said that he had never heard of that stuff before and it was being jammed down their throats. Limiting the use to children only he felt was a reasonable proposal . He felt the noise generated from adults finishing a game, in the parking lot a six pack of beer might be produced, and did not want to have to listen to that or a boom box. He wanted peace and quiet, which was just as valid as any other activity. By restricting the hour to 9:00 p.m. , the kids wouldn' t be playing as late at the Cook Street facility, which meant they could have a specific hour set. When talking about : retro-fitting or studying mitigating the lights at COD, he asked if staff was just talking about exhausting a $20, 000 budget or about making the goal the actual mitigation of the lighting. He also felt that it should ; not be a problem for the city to agree to a periodic review of the lights on a quarterly basis. One person suggested that when the bulbs were replaced, the aiming could be tampered with. If the lighting was so state of the art, that should not be a problem. Mr. Diaz said that was a condition of approval. � rir.r I� Mr. Villeneuve stated that regarding City of Irvine standards, how were they to know those standards were the best; they had not had a chance to examine them. That was another community' s standards and they should have an opportunity for debate and discussion. He concluded that ' the ballfields were needed in the community and did not have an objection to that, but the city had done a very poor job in meeting with residents and listening to their concerns and trying to find mitigation measures that were acceptable. If that were not true, they would not be at the meeting again going over rough ground. ' MRS. SUSIE HOMME commended the planning commission for developing a wonderful project that created a core in the city that was desperately needed by all the families. ' She felt it was the intention of the planning commission ' to create something that was a benefit to everyone. The only thing lacking were the fields. She felt that more discussions with Monterey Country Club were not needed. These things had been under discussion since 1988 and they wanted the fields now. They could not wait four more years for the fields. She recommended any of the � 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 people go down to Cook field any night of the week and � watch how many people were packed into those fields. The problem was there were five fields for 1250 children. She felt the needs of the children were more important and there were times that choices had to be made that were not always popular. The children should come first and were the future of the community and country. MR. LARRY LANGNER, 42-970 Texas Avenue, stated that the residents of Monterey Country Club built walls to keep the public out; now they were asking the city to build an invisible dome over their playground to keep the children out from the noise and lights they need. He felt that was what it came down to; they have their playground and now the city needed one for the children. MS. DELLA HOMEYER, 247 Castellana North in Monterey Country Club, stated that she felt the representation was not as strong as before from Monterey Country Club, but the feelings still existed. She did not feel she had a side personally in this issue; she was not against the ballfields, not against what the people from Monterey wanted either. She and her husband after the last meeting got in the car and went for a drive to see first hand the area. In driving inside Monterey Country Club, � the mileage from their home and around the various sectors with Magnesia Falls as the boundary on the north side and Monterey Avenue angling into Gran Via as the boundary on the west side and coming east from there. At the last meeting it was said there were approximately 100 residents that would be affected on Castellana South. They live at the further corner of the general block which was approximately two miles from the ballfield. They would get lights and noise as a matter of fact. What was being discussed was 150 feet and 300 feet--at Magnesia Falls closest to where the ballfields would be located she and her husband got out of the car. Next to it was a DWP lot that had barbed wire onto what would be the extension of Magnesia Falls. She stated that she could not see over the wall, but the wall was approximately above her eyes and she was five and a half feet tall. At the last meeting Commissioner Richards mentioned there were six foot walls and someone mentioned the 50 foot trees along Magnesia Falls and Castellana South. The wall at the point of ground level next to ; them was less than five and a half feet. With putting her toe into the bottom brick she could see over it and did not feel this was like being in a glass dome 22 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 ,,,,,�, enclosure. She indicated there were approximately half ' a dozen strands of trees on their own property that had anywhere from three to one tree and spaces of 50-75 yards , between them. She did not feel that was any kind of barricade. She said there were three access areas where people were coming over the wall, not throwing rocks, not lights or noise, but people were actually intruding into their property. It could be a single family dwelling property or a country club that people were intruding into from Magnesia Falls and felt that was probably the biggest concern they had was the violation of any kind of ' security. She did not feel they were afforded the kind of security that people in their own homes were--they could just go out and extend the wall, Monterey Country Club had to go through the board, etc. She stated that it was not just being on one side or the other side; there were issues that involved the homeowners and there was a high incidence of robbery along Castellana South and she had been on the board of directors for five years when Monterey Country Club was fairly new and she saw the reports that came in and it was big problem then and was , a bigger problem now. She indicated that the new thing was frustration and felt that Mr. Diaz had listened to the people he wanted to and smiled at them and knew that � he had gestured differently at people he didn' t want to listen to, although the rest of the board was polite. She did not feel the frustration had been eased by that type of behavior. She felt that one more meeting would not hurt anyone and right now no one was satisfied and there was a feeling of going in circles. She indicated it would be great to have the kids get to bed early, and many of her neighbors liked to get to bed early also. MR. JOE MASSERELLI, 45-385 Santa Fe Cove in Indian Wells, stated that he lived eight and a half years in this community before moving there. He wanted to clarify that ' 1 ) parents don' t go and drop off their children and leave them there to play--they go and stay with their children; 2 ) there were no boom boxes around Cook field and he did not feel there would be any around the new park; and 3 ) there were no six packs of beer at Cook field and he did not feel there would be any here either. Mr. Diaz stated that he agreed with Dr. Randall that perhaps another meeting was necessary and this time the meeting should ' include everyone involved. The last meeting was just one group. Staff recommended that the public testimony portion be terminated; that a meeting be held with representatives of ;,w,,,, 23 ' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION , MAY 5, 1992 IMonterey Country Club, Mr. Villeneuve representin the rr�fi 9 Vineyards, representatives of the Youth Sports, and that at the next meeting one representative from each group report on that meeting; also, the director of public works would be involved in that meeting and there would be one staff report. He stated that this staff in the 12 years he had been there had never said let' s not hold one more meeting and try to solve everything; if it could be solved, fine, but on occasions staff had to make recommendations and just because it was not agreed to did not mean staff was against you or if in favor did not mean staff was for you. He said this item should be continued for two weeks, have the meeting with Mr. Guralnick from Monterey Country Club and their legal counsel would bring their people, Mr. Villeneuve from the Vineyards, and Mr. Johnson from the Youth Sports and each person would bring two other representatives and two or three members from staff would be present and they would try to hammer this out and come back with each group giving a report on what they felt was the result of that meeting. ; Commissioner powns asked the city attorney if they could restrict the public hearing to only one person from each group speaking; Mr. Diaz stated that there would be reports from each group present, it would not be public testimony. � Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commissioner Jonathan commented that this was a significant issue involving many people and what tended to happen when there were two sides to an issue each side tended to get a little extreme and felt that is what had happened here. He believed that the people living in Monterey Country Club liked kids, baseball and would like to see the kids have baseball. He believed that the people favoring baseball for the kids liked the people at Monterey Country Club and recognized that if there were a ballfield going up close to their own backyard, they would have the same concerns. There were valid concerns on both sides. He did not see this as a mutually exclusive type of issue and there was room for compromise and in his opinion the compromise that had taken place was no access from Magnesia Falls, no parking on Magnesia Falls, date trees to mitigate noise and lights, up to $20, 000 to begin the process of resolving any lighting problems from either the driving range or the ballfields, the corporate yard was eliminated, no public speaker system would be allowed. Counsel from Monterey Country Club indicated he would like more mitigations, moving the ballfields further south, the 24 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 access road deleted, Magnesia Falls vacated, restriction to �"" children only and he did not feel those were appropriate. Staff said that the project could not be moved further south; vacation of Magnesia Falls was not before the commission; restricting the use to children only and he felt that if the commission started restricting any single group, it was just inviting problems. He felt the beauty of a conditional use permit was that the project was constantly under review and if anyone had a problem with it, they could come back to the planning commission and express that concern and the city would have the opportunity to react appropriately. Commissioner Jonathan felt the mitigations were a reasonable compromise to both sides, while possibly not the ideal solution for either side. He felt that whatever they finally acted upon they would be acting wisely and the residents would ' not have lights bright enough to play cards on the fairway or noise and inebriated adults and boom boxes. The commission also lived here and did not want those kinds of things happening either. He stated that he could be persuaded to have one more meeting, but indicated that the problem was just ' being prolonged. If there was a chance that people would be happier as a result of that meeting, then perhaps two weeks , was not unreasonable. As an individual commissioner, he was prepared to vote on the project as it was presented by staff because he felt a reasonable compromise had taken place. w�r. Commissioner Spiegel agreed with Commissioner Jonathan and heard the comment that the project was being rammed down their throats and he did not feel the city had taken that approach. ' Everyone seemed to agree that a complex was needed for the children and he stated that he was proud of the park here now and what it has and would accomplish for the City of Palm Desert. He noted that Palm Desert was a growing city and in a growing city there would be problems and problems with ' children. It was experienced in Los Angeles and in Palm ' Springs. If something constructive was not done to create ', activities for children, it could be experienced at the Town Center and El Paseo. He stated that he would recommend the continuance for two weeks. Commissioner powns stated that he was ready to vote tonight. He indicated that when this complex was bought, it was bought with parks, recreation, the YMCA and all of these uses planned for it. He agreed with the homeowners of Monterey Country Club that mitigation should be done and believed that it had been done. He stated that he would not oppose another ' meeting, but ballfields and parks were included in this ' 25 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 complex from the very beginning as part of the reason for � buying the 72 acres instead of buying a smaller area. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would make the motion for continuance and would volunteer his presence at the meetiing. Mr. Diaz stated that he would like two commissioners present and the meeting would take place on May 15 at 9 :00 a.m. here at the city and three representatives from each group including Mr. Guralnick from Monterey Country Club, Mr. Villeneuve from the Vineyards, and Mr. Johnson with the Youth Sports. Chairperson Whitlock suggested that Commissioner Richards be the other commissioner and if he could not attend she could be contacted. MR. DANIEL BARNES addressed the commission and recommended two parks and recreation commissioners also attend. Mr. Diaz concurred that they would be included. Action• Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, continuing CUP 92-2 and the Draft Environmental Impact Report to May 19, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 4-0. � C. Continued Case No. CUP 92-3 - GEORGE BUONO ( for Nicolino' s) , Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit for a 2800 square foot restaurant with on-site beer, wine and spirits at 74-991 Avenue 42. Mr. Winklepleck outlined the salient points of the staff report. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MIKE OMAN, 125 E. Tahquitz in Palm Springs, stated that he represented Mr. George Buono and Nicolino' s restaurant. He reiterated that the parking would be predominately offsite and would be a good location and would help reduce the flow of traffic from the workers in the Cook/Hovley Street area that were now flowing up to Highway 111 to find eating establishments. He indicated 2 6 ,� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ' MAY 5, 1992 ,�, that he recently assisted KESQ TV in moving 100 employees into that area and felt this would be a logical asset for those employees. He said there were only two other ' eating establishments in the area, but they were small . Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Spiegel agreed that another restaurant would be useful in the area. Commissioner powns noted there were two or three other restaurants out there. He stated that during the day there was a shortage of parking and adding a 2800 square foot restaurant would only take up more parking, but he was prepared to vote in favor. Mr. Winklepleck stated that he measured the parking and it conformed with the site plan and a condition was added to ensure the spaces would be striped prior to the opening of the restaurant. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he looked at the area on � Cook and noted that it was not available for parking right now. Chairperson Whitlock indicated that she did not have a problem with the proposal and was looking forward to having another eating establishment close to her office. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried , 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1567, approving CUP 92-3 subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. D. Case No. PP 92-2 - D & F DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan for a 23 unit single family development on 2. 5 acres within the R-2 zone at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Santa Rosa Way. � 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report. He ,� indicated that the project would require a tentative map which will require an additional hearing before the commission. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the two story units were in compliance with the ordinance for side and rear yard setbacks. Mr. Drell answered that this was not a single family zone, but a multifamily zone. He stated that a two story project on Fred Waring a couple of streets down would not require sideyards. The zone would allow four units to be together without any side yards. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that in that case they would be condominiums and there would not be any windows looking into someone ' s yard. Mr. Drell stated that in a condominium situation there were usually very few yards and this was a unique application of the development in what was normally an apartment zoning to try and create individual units. Mr. Drell felt it should be looked at like a condominium project where individual, separate units had been created. He said that the zone would allow over ten units per acre and if single family standards were applied, there probably couldn' t be more than four units in the project. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if � the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. FRANZ TIERRE, 46-333 Burroweed in Palm Desert, one of the project developers, stated that his partner David Britton was also present. He stated that he was present to answer any questions. He indicated that one of the things they tried to accomplish was a development that looked and acted as much like a single family development as possible, rather than a multiple apartment development on that property. He felt that if he had a choice, he would rather live in the proposed development rather than a typical condominium or apartment. He stated that there was excellent architecture provided and would be a nice plus in that location. Commissioner Spiegel asked Mr. Tierre what the price range would be; Mr. Tierre replied approximately $115, 000-$130, 000 range. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. 2 8 �; MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 ,�, MR. HOWARD MASON, Portola and Catalina, asked for and received permission to review the wall map of the proposal . Commissioner Spiegel felt the project would upgrade the area. Chairperson Whitlock concurred with Commissioner Spiegel . Commissioner Jonathan also concurred, but stated that he had a problem with the two story feature because of the privacy concern. He indicated that he supports two stories, but this project was configured in a different way. He did not like the two story units looking directly into someone ' s backyard or home. He stated that he was willing to live with the single story units being closer together because the project was unique and if some housing could be provided for under $150, 000 that would be great. The current configuration with the two story units was a problem. Mr. Drell asked the commission to look at the rear elevation provided in the packets. He felt that there were virtually no windows in the two stories other than those facing the street. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in some cases the windows faced the side of the other home. Mr. Drell indicated that the two story footprint was smaller and went on lots that were shorter. He felt it was a trade off of that aspect and a � larger yard. He noted that in this case all the two story units were grouped together. He suggested that one alternative was for all the two story units to have clerestory except those facing the street. MR. DAVID BRITTON, 43-000 Washington Street, stated that he was Mr. Tierre ' s partner. He indicated that there ' were no windows on the zero lot line side that could look into any adjacent yards. In addition, he said that the footprint two story unit had the second story drawn in and was further away from the property line. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for ' a motion. It was moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, adopting the findings as presented by , staff. Motion died with a 2-2 vote (Commissioners Downs and Jonathan voted no) . Commissioner Jonathan suggested as an alternative the item could be continued to either create clerestory windows or come back with a different configuration. He said that he did not want the project eliminated, but the two story issue should be adequately addressed. ,,,�,,,, 2 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 Mr. Diaz suggested that the applicants file their tentative � map at the same time. Mr. Drell stated that if they did not feel they had a project, they would not want to hire someone to do the tentative map. Mr. Drell indicated that the view problem was an architectural issue, but those specific instances could be studied. He felt that part of the problem was looking at individual building elevations and in some cases they would change where a specific side would be a property line, and then there would not be any windows at all . Commissioners Downs and Jonathan felt that a continuance would ' be in order. Commissioner Jonathan suggested that the applicant return with a plan delineating where the two story units would be located, the location of the windows, and have those plans properly revised. Mr. Drell stated that the site plan would indicate where all the windows would be in every particular configuration. Mr. Tierre suggested placing that as a condition of approval. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he wanted to see new plans that showed specifically how it was handled. Mr. Tierre stated that a two week continuance was acceptable to him. Chairperson Whitlock reopened the public testimony. � Action• Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing PP 92-2 to May 19, 1992. Carried 4-0. E. Case No. 3049 SA - VILLAGE LOUNGE, Applicant Request for approval of an exception to the city' s sign code ( Section 25. 68.300) to allow a roof sign at 72-795 Highway 111, Suite 18, in the PC-3 S.P. zone. Mr. Winklepleck explained that the applicant was requesting an exception to the sign code that currently states that no sign shall be located higher than the eave line of the building. Planning commission was allowed to approve exceptions if two standards were met: 1 ) the sign should be integrated into the architecture of the building; and 2) the sign would not be detrimental to neighboring businesses. He stated that the applicant was requesting a roof sign that would read "Village Lounge" in non-illuminated 18-inch white gatorfoam letters. He indicated that the 18 inches was the same size as Penguin' s to the north and the building had a 33-inch parapet which was 30 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 ' �,,,,, specifically designed to provide signs for units in that area. He noted that the parapet was utilized by Arby' s, McDonald' s, and Penguin' s. At the April 14 architectural review meeting, the sign was determined as meeting the two requirements with one exception: the while color be either tan or black, which staff felt would still accomplish the applicant ' s goal . Staff recommended approval with a more subdued color. Commissioner Spiegel asked if the planning commission had approved the location of the Penguin' s, Arby' s or McDonald' s sign. Mr. Winklepleck replied only Arby' s because the others were prior to the adoption of the ordinance. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. There was no response. It was determined that the applicant was not present. Commissioner Spiegel stated that he had lived here over 11 years and while he had not been to the Village Lounge, it had been there over 11 years. Then Penguin' s and Arby' s got signs ', and he recommended that the sign be approved subject to a modified color as approved by staff. �, Commissioner powns explained that in this case he could concur because of problems the original owner was having, although normally he wouldn' t when the applicant was not present. Action• Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1568, ' approving 3049 SA, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. F. Case No. PM 27463 - RK DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval subdivision of a 6. 57 acre parcel into four lots located south of Green Way/Sego Lane and east of Beacon Hill. ' Mr. Diaz explained that the applicant submitted a letter requesting a continuance of two weeks. Staff recommended that continuance to May 19, 1992. ,� 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if +,� anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one. Chairperson Whitlock asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, continuing this item to May 19, 1992. Carried 4-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS None. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATION$ MR. ARNOLD PARSCH, 75-940 Morongo Place in Indian Wells, stated that he was representing the Peace Lutheran Church to request church services at 77-734 Country Club Drive Space F- 3, which was in an industrial zoned area ( see attached letter) . He explained that they were requesting to hold services on Sunday morning from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and Wednesday services after 6:00 p.m. He indicated that the unit size was approximately 900 square feet. He said that he and � his wife went around and talked to the tenants in the building to request their approval--he stated they were all happy to have them there. He informed commission that they were ready to move in as soon as they received approval and the Orr Company would allow them to move in after the approval was granted. Mr. Diaz informed commission that this area was recently annexed into Palm Desert and was the industrial area north of Country Club just westerly of Washington Street. He stated that the problem staff faced was that in the industrial zone, churches were not presently permitted. Normally staff would request that this type of use be allowed subject to a conditional use permit so that the hours and days of operation could be controlled. He stated that the days of operation would be on Sundays when the industrial uses are closed. He said that the problem Mr. Parsch was facing was that they had to vacate the location they were in now. Staff recommended that if the commission found the particular use acceptable in the service industrial zone subject to a conditional use permit and public hearing, the applicant could file an application for that and allow staff, as part of the application, to research the particular use in this area. He 32 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 �„ suggested that while the application was being processed, Sunday services only could be allowed until the results of the public hearing were obtained with the understanding that this action did not constitute an approval, but was part of a research project. Mr. Diaz did not feel that Wednesday evenings should be allowed at this time, only Sundays-- Wednesdays could be reviewed with the application. Mr. Parsch stated that right now the church was not situated to hold Wednesday evening services--that would be later on or during the advent season. Right now they were holding services from a roxim 1 �, pp ate y 9 :30 to 11 :00 a.m. He said that if they obtained this approval they would also begin a Sunday � School activity in the same location. ' I Mr. Diaz explained that he would talk to the Orr I�� representatives and explain that this action did not constitute an approval . Action• ' Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, ' by minute motion permitting church uses in the service industrial zone subject to a conditional use permit, and in this case as part of the research, permitting Sunday services � in the proposed location while the conditional use permit was � being reviewed. Carried 4-0. X. COMMENTS Commissioner powns stated that he would like the arkin P 9 requirement for the industrial zone changed. Mr. Diaz indicated that one question that was raised was the parking allowance in the industrial zone. He said that the parking requirement was one space per 500 square feet. In the office professional and commercial zones it was four per 1, 000 sguare feet. He stated that one problem was that people came ' in with an industrial building and then asked for retail uses which required more parking. He felt this could be easily solved from staff' s standpoint if the parking requirement was four per 1, 000 across the board, then there wouldn't be this issue of what constituted an office use. He indicated that this could be studied and staff could return with a report. Chairperson Whitlock asked if everything there now would be , grandparented in; Mr. Diaz replied yes. ' �,,, 33 ' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992 Commissioner Jonathan stated that a year ago he requested a � study of the Cook Street area and some of the buildings that came in under warehouse standards at two per 1, 000 had converted illegally to office use. He noted there was a prominent one on Cook Street at Hovley. He indicated that this created a shortage of parking spaces because of the office use. He felt that as part of the analysis staff should see if there was anything realistic that could be done about that. Mr. Diaz noted that the Cook Street area was also redevelopment project area and one of the projects they looked at establishing was additional parking, which redevelopment could do; he said that would also be reviewed. Commissioner powns asked about a motion; Mr. Diaz asked if there was a consensus. Commissioners Jonathan and Spiegel concurred. Chairperson Whitlock stated that she did not feel there was a need for further study. Commissioner powns agreed and indicated that he wanted the ordinance changed and moved to instruct staff to do so. XI. ADJOURNMENT " � Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner powns, adjourning the meeting to May 19, 1992 by min e motion. Carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 m. r � . �'e `d's�'�eJ�`�� • RAM N A. DIAZ, ec ary ATTEST: C���,� � CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson Palm Des�rt Planning Commission /tm 3 4 ,�; � �`� , �� ,,,�� PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH ������E� P. O. BOX 2qoi PALM DESERT CA q�Z6o �AY 5 �992 � COMMIINIIY DCVELOPMk��T DEPPRiMENT � f.ITY OF pp�M p�SEAT May 4 , 1992 Planning Commission , City of Palm Desert , Palm Desert City Hall Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Commissioners: The members of Peace Lutheran Church, a new mission of approximately 25 current members, respectfull� requests your approval to hold services on Sunday mornings from 8 : 00 a.m. to noon and Wednesday evening services after 6: 00 p.m. The location of our proposed church is 77-734 Country Club Drive in Palm Desert. Pending the commission' s approval, The Orr Company, as owners of the commercial complex, have agreed to lease ;� to Peace Lutheran Church, space No. F3 of approximately 900 square feet. � Thank you for your consideration concerning our request. Very truly yours, � '��,,�*����.J�7"G�-'�-9.�1%�1 Arnold Porsch Elder �