The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1206 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 6, 1994 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Fernandez led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty George Fernandez Bob Spiegel Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Joe Gaugush Bob Hargreaves Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the November 15, 1994 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, . approving the November 15, 1994 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Di.a2 summarized pertinent November 16, 1-03'4'- c.ity council actions . VI . CONSENT CALENDAR None. VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. TT 27964 - REGENCY ROVES, Applicant Request for approval of 46 condominium units on- 9 .67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive approximately 260d r.. feet west of Cook Street, also MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6 , 1994 particularly described as : APN 620-200- 021 and 620-200-029 . Mr. Diaz explained that this matter had been continued from September 20, October 18, and November 16 to tonight to allow the Environmental Impact Report for Section 4 to be certified by the city council . That EIR was certified. He said that as noted in early staff reports, the tentative map met all requirements of zoning and the general plan and should be approved. Commissioner Spiegel asked how this would effect the current plan for Section 4 . Mr. Diaz replied that based on the current plan that was now drawn up, these ten acres would have one or two golf holes on them, but they could not deny this tentative map. Chairperson Jonathan asked if when the Section 4 master plan was created, there was some expectation of land acquisition. Mr. Diaz stated that the master plan was still being created and there were other parcels that were included that had plans that had already been approved by this commission along Portola--the office professional use. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was still an expectation that what was approved for Section 4 was going to happen or if there was �r something else that might come about because individual land owners were going through with their own projects . Mr. Diaz indicated that individual land owners could go through with their own projects; whether this project proceeded was up to the applicant or the redevelopment agency if it wished to acquire the vacant property. In terms of the planning commission decision, until the plan was completed this was the action that was the proper action. He noted that there was discussion on whether this would increase the value of the land--he said it did not. The courts two years ago made the decision that whether or not a tentative map was approved, the value of the land was already determined as though the map were approved. Chairperson Jonathan asked if in general for an application to come before the commission, the party making the application had to be an owner of the property. Mr. Diaz replied either the owner or have the owner' s permission. Chairperson Jonathan asked how that was done with the Section 4 plan; Mr. Diaz said that the Section 4 plan was not before the commission, just the environmental impact report. He noted that was an interesting question and felt that there were a lot of issues that needed to be addressed on the Section 4 plan because there would be some tentative parcel maps that would have to be approved when the 2 "'D' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 plan went through and the plan itself was adopted. He knew that tentative maps could not be approved without an owner' s permission. He believed that the specific plan could be approved, however, when an applicant applied, the commission had to make a decision as though the other plan was not there. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the setback indicated for the 32 foot project in the PR-5 zone required 85 feet--he asked if the applicant was seeking a variance. Mr. Diaz stated that he would look at the zoning ordinance and clarify that later in the meeting. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. No one was present. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff knew why the applicant or a representative was not present. Mr. Diaz replied that the reason might be because the commission had gone through the public hearing and the only reason the approval was being held up was the certification of the EIR, which was done. Mr. Diaz stated that there were no reasons to deny this map. The plan met all the criteria of the general plan--he was talking about 46 units and the zoning allowed up to 50 . Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant was aware of the hearing--Mr. Diaz believed so, but in this case since the applicant had been delayed from September 20 to now waiting for the environmental impact report, staff would recommend approval of the tentative map. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public testimony and asked for comments by the commission. Commissioner Spiegel noted that the applicant was present on September 20 and the commission went through the entire proposal . The big problem on September 20 was that the EIR was not approved. Now that the EIR was approved and the commission had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Jack Kibbey at that time, he would recommend approval . Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the findings as submitted by staff . Commissioner Beaty noted that they could not pretend that they did not know that the city was planning a project. Mr. Hargreaves stated that the applicant had a right to go forward with their project under the current zoning/general plan. The city could negotiate the purchase or go out and exercise their eminent domain powers . If the city at this `. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 point were to take action with the purpose of slowing down the project because the city had other plans, they would run into certain kinds of pre-condemnation liabilities . The aim at this point was to forget about any plans the city might have and deal with this as an application based on existing zoning laws . Commissioner Beaty asked if the project were approved, and if the city in the near future decided to proceed with the plan, if the city had a mechanism to obtain the property. Mr. Hargreaves said the redevelopment agency could exercise eminent domain. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the continued case was before them because the applicant was pushing to get the application moving forward; Mr. Diaz stated that the reason for the delay of the project was waiting certification of the environmental impact report, which was required. The reason the application was before the commission was because the applicant wanted to proceed with the project. Mr. Diaz noted that while the applicant was not present, based on comments by the city attorney, he urged that the commission approve the tentative map. Commissioner Beaty asked for clarification on the 85 foot setback. Mr. Diaz stated that it should be 25 feet for the front setback. Commissioner Beaty asked what the difference was in open space if open space was 55% gross and this was 50% net. Mr. Diaz said that the project had 55% gross and the requirement was 50% of net and the project met that requirement. Mr. Diaz stated that the gross would include the street because Country Club was widened before this development took place. In the PR zone it was determined by gross density. The 55% included the land that was Country Club Drive, which was now paved. Commissioner Jonathan commented that generally he was uncomfortable taking action on a project without the applicant being present and normally he would be in favor of a continuance or denial, but under the circumstances he would go along with the motion. He called for a vote. Motion carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1670, approving TT 27964, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . B. Continued Case No. CUP 93-3 Gerald Ford/Cook Street - RICHARD ODEKIRK, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to construct and operate a 4 Now MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6 , 1994 Now 25+ acre multi-use, pay for play recreation facility to be located on 25 acres of City of Palm Desert owned land zoned PC-2 and PR-5 at the southeast corner of Gerald Ford (extended) and Cook Street (extended) . Mr. Diaz noted that at the last meeting the commission received a ten page letter indicating various things, one of which was that an environmental impact report should be prepared on this project. Staff believed that the negative declaration of environmental impact should be certified on this project. He stated that he would like to preface his remarks by indicating the alternatives the commission would have before them. As was the case with the Regency project, if the commission felt an environmental impact report was required for this project, then they could not approve the conditional use permit--they would have to continue that and instruct staff to have an environmental impact report prepared. If additional information was necessary for the commission to make that decision, again they could not approve the conditional use permit. The commission could certify the negative declaration of environmental impact if they felt that addressed the environmental issues adequately and then they could approve the conditional use permit with the certification of the negative declaration. The commission could deny the conditional use permit, in which case they would take no action at all on the negative declaration or the issue of the environmental impact report. The commission, after hearing his comments on the environmental impact report issue, had to decide whether or not at that particular point an environmental impact report should be prepared. The reason was because he would recommend that the commission terminate the public testimony portion of the hearing and terminate the public hearing instructing staff to have an environmental impact report prepared and the hearing re-noticed. If after listening to comments on the environmental issues the commission felt that a negative declaration of environmental impact was sufficient on this project, then staff would recommend that the commission continue with the public hearing and testimony portion of this hearing. If after concluding the public testimony portion of the hearing the commission at that point felt that based on the testimony they have heard that an environmental impact report was appropriate for the project, the commission could still instruct staff to have prepared an environmental impact report and the other actions on the 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 conditional use permit. If commission felt the conditional use permit should be denied, then they could do that. Chairperson Jonathan stated that because the negative declaration or the issue of an EIR was germane to this issue, but it did not appear as an item for a vote before them and was an appendix to the staff report, he asked if they were better off addressing that matter first, whether the commission felt that an EIR should be performed or not. Mr. Diaz stated that the resolution before the commission approving the conditional use permit should also set forth the certification of the negative declaration of environmental impact. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the resolution would be revised to include in the title certification of the negative declaration; Mr. Diaz concurred. He noted that in reading the communication from Mr. Greene and retired Judge Einbinder, in looking at the issues of the environmental impact report specifically on page 3, the second paragraph concluded that these were some of the issues that were required to be addressed in the EIR for this project when it was proposed on Portola. He said it was upon that statement that staff based its conclusion that a negative declaration of environmental impact was not necessary on this particular site because those issues were addressed in the environmental impact report that was rf completed on Section 4 . The EIR was certified and that EIR concluded that the entire project in general, and this one in specific, would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment if the mitigation measures set forth within that environmental impact report were imposed on the project. Those mitigation measures had been imposed on this project and on Section 4 . All the impacts (i .e. lighting, noise, parking, traffic) that were imposed on the project on Portola were imposed on this project so that further analysis of this particular project regardless of whether or not it was on this site or a mile away, had been addressed. On page 4 it said responsible agencies had not been contacted. In terms of this particular project area, it was closer to the Cook Street Interchange by about one mile. The Cook Street Interchange had gone through extensive environmental analysis, particularly dealing with flora, fauna and natural resources and covered that entire area. One of the findings of this particular site when they were going through the Cook Street Interchange and the negative declaration that was approved for the widening of Cook Street on this site, was the fact that a great portion of this site had been vineyards and did not even require under the Fringe-Toed Lizard Reserve Plan mitigation because that habitat was already destroyed. 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 As far as those natural resources were concerned, they had already been studied and identified as part of the studies on the Cook Street Interchange, as part of the Environmental Impact Report done on the Swank project across the street (Rancho Portola) , and also as part of Section 4 . Those issues have been addressed in other documents which could be made part and parcel of this particular file and project. In terms of responsible agencies, which one would define as an agency for which a permit was required to proceed with a project, there were no other agencies which would require a permit to proceed with this project. Looking at the guidelines for a negative declaration and initial study, all of the information had been provided. The staff report described the location, the area and commission for the record was familiar with the area. The writers of the letter were also familiar with the area because of meetings that staff had with them. They indicated that one of the reasons at the time that this site might be better was because of the differences in elevation between this site and the Portola site. In terms of CEQA, staff felt the conditions that had been placed on this project, which were similar to those placed on the Section 4 project, assured that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and, therefore, a negative declaration of environmental impact did meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the commission could separately address the negative declaration or the issue of an environmental impact report first before addressing the conditional use permit. His reason for asking was because if there was a feeling on the commission that an EIR was needed, then it would be a waste of everyone' s time to discuss the conditional use permit. Mr. Diaz said that could be done and the reason he went through that right now was to give the commission the information to enable them to make that determination if they wished to do so. Chairperson Jonathan recommended that be done. Commissioner Spiegel stated that he had some questions for staff . Chairperson Jonathan said that if they limited the discussion to the EIR and if they felt that it was then warranted to go onto the conditional use permit, then they could do so. If they felt an EIR was necessary, they should continue the matter. Commissioner Spiegel said that as he understood it, the pay for play would be part of the area that the city had decided 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 they wanted to place a Cal State college on; Mr. Diaz concurred. Commissioner Spiegel asked if an EIR would be necessary for the Cal State college. Mr. Diaz replied yes . Commissioner Spiegel noted this project could not go forward until Cook Street was completed. Mr. Diaz said the project could proceed when Cook Street to Gerald Ford was constructed. Commissioner Spiegel noted it probably would not go forward until the interchange; Mr. Diaz felt the project could proceed without the interchange. Commissioner Spiegel asked what the time line was on the Gerald Ford/Cook Street connection. Mr. Gaugush informed commission that there had been a construction contract award for the construction of the Cook Street Extension northerly; it had been put in a holding pattern while additional improvements were being looked into ( i .e. installation of water and sewer lines) . There was a recent action by council to amend the engineering contract to provide for the design of those facilities, so six to eight weeks to start of construction and maybe a little beyond that. He clarified that was the construction of Cook Street north of Frank Sinatra to an approximate area where Gerald Ford would intersect without any additional connection. He said it would be a ninety day construction period. Commissioner Spiegel noted that would be about six months and an EIR would take about six months and one would have to be done anyway for the college. Mr. rj Diaz agreed that one would have to be done for the college. Commissioner Jonathan felt that Mr. Diaz ' s defense of the negative declaration to a large extent cited previous environmental impact reports that had already been completed and their applicability to the same project, but in a different location. He felt it would be prudent to have an engineer conduct a mini EIR where they would come to the same conclusion where they looked at the project in this new location and said that based on the findings of a certain EIR or study, they came to the conclusion that there would be no significantly different impact so the same mitigations would have the same effect. Mr. Diaz said that only commission could determine if it would be prudent. Staff did not feel it would be necessary. The reason he was willing to cite the environmental impact reports mentioned was because of their proximity to the project and they utilize the same streets that this project at this location would impact. Rather than doing a mini EIR, if an EIR was going to be done, he would recommend that they do the whole one for various legal reasons . Commissioner Beaty asked what the city paid for the EIR on the Portola site. Mr. Diaz replied $187,000. Commissioner 8 me MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 `..► Beaty asked what an EIR would cost for this site. Mr. Diaz stated that the proposal he received for an environmental impact report on this site from the same firm that did the EIR on the Section 4 site was $75, 000 . Commissioner Beaty commented that this was a controversial issue and he felt that no matter what the commission decided it would go to council and he did not want to see the commission hold it up. He agreed with Mr. Diaz on the support of the negative declaration. Everything had been addressed and conditions imposed that there could not be any effects from lights, noise, and the mitigation was imposed to make sure that happened. He was in favor of supporting the negative declaration so that council would have the opportunity to talk about this project; otherwise, the council could not discuss it Thursday night. Mr. Diaz stated that if it went to council, it would go to council either by appeal or by call-up. The reason he made the distinction was because the appeal allowed for a 15 day period after the decision. He noted that opponents of the project at the last meeting demanded a 15 day appeal period rather than having the matter automatically sent to council . At the council meeting it was said that they would be allowed the 15 day appeal period. If the commission made a decision today, either denying or approving, any party could appeal that decision within 15 %n.w days and that would take it up to the 21st of December. Then a new noticed public hearing before the council would have to take place and that would then occur in January. If the council called it up for review on December 8, 1994 , then they could call it up and the hearing could take place and notification going out within two weeks . It could be heard by the council on December 22 . If the matter was continued, a continued matter could not be appealed or called up because there was no decision to be appealed. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the applicant was comfortable with this third location. Mr. Diaz said it was his understanding that the applicant was comfortable with the third location and he noted that the applicant was in the audience. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he was concerned about the lack of an EIR from two perspectives : first of all, as discussed at the last meeting the commission was aware of a litigation hazard with regards to this particular issue. More importantly, he had the feeling it would be imprudent to allow this particular project anywhere in the city without an environmental impact report because there had been recognized impacts that were mitigatible but recognized impacts having q.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 to do with traffic, noise and potential light pollution, and when moving the project to a different location, he did not feel they could assume that the same impacts would occur in the new location or would not occur--there might be new impacts that would occur. Further, there were different neighbors to the project. He said he would rather err on the side of conservatism and require an environmental impact report. Commissioner Spiegel did not totally agree and if legal counsel felt it was okay, he would concur. Mr. Hargreaves explained that ultimately the decision for the planning commission to make and the standard was whether given the information before them, if they believed that the project was likely to have significant environmental impacts that would not be mitigated by the conditions placed upon it. He noted that the project had been before them three times . Based on the information before them and the commission's knowledge of the project and the area, he felt they were in a position to make a decision as to whether or not the project was likely to add significant environmental impacts that had not been addressed through the mitigation measures . Commissioner Spiegel felt that one way or another the city council would be making the final determination, whether the location was here or in Section 4 . He felt it should be goo moved along. Commissioner Whitlock concurred. She supported staff and the recommendation of the city attorney. She did not feel an EIR in this instance was necessary. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that the litigation hazard was only one concern of his . The main concern was the actual environmental impact. He said he would not back away from something simply because of litigation. Commissioner Beaty stated that he shared the concerns on environmental impacts, but felt comfortable that environmental impacts at this site had already been addressed. One would be an archeological issue, which had already been ruled out. He asked if there were any cultural impacts that showed up on the Cook Street Interchange site. Mr. Diaz replied there were none at this time. Commissioner Beaty asked if that EIR had been completed; Mr. Diaz stated that the environmental process for the interchange was ongoing. If an indian burial site was found, then everything would be halted. Commissioner Beaty felt that everything was very thoroughly looked at for the interchange and they looked at the whole area, which was why he was comfortable with the negative declaration. Chairperson Jonathan felt discussion on the issue of the conditional use permit could commence at this time. He asked 10 V MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 `•• if Mr. Diaz had anything to add to the CUP aspect. Mr. Hargreaves stated that if the consensus at this point was that as an initial reaction, that an EIR was not needed, then the appropriate thing would be to go ahead and open the public hearing, take testimony, and then after hearing everything, then make a final determination on both the negative declaration and the CUP. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he was not sure if staff had made all their comments with regard to the CUP or whether the comments were limited before to the EIR. Mr. Diaz stated that on the resolution there were three revisions to the conditions : one revision on page 3 condition 11 dealing with special events and condition 9 dealing with hours of operation. On condition 9 the hours of operation Sunday through Thursday would be from 5 : 00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m. with the site cleared by 11 : 30 p.m. On item 11 dealing with special events the sentence should be added that, "Such events shall be limited to Saturdays and Sundays between the hours of 10 : 00 a.m. and 6 : 00 p.m. These special events shall be limited to charitable sports events . " This was consistent with what the council approved on the Section 4 site. On page 5 condition 26, no more than three (not six) video games would be permitted onsite in the restaurant. Condition 17 to public works department should be added that, "Conditions as set `• forth in the memorandum dated October 18, 1994 from the director of public works to the director of community development are attached and made part hereto as Exhibit B. " He noted the memo was to increase the amount of street improvements necessary because the site was now at Cook Street, rather than Portola. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Spiegel noted that on page 2, the report said the location assured fairly easy access--Cook Street would have a full interchange to I-10. He asked when there would be a full interchange to I-10 . Mr. Gaugush replied approximately 36 months . Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICHARD ODEKIRK, 43-670 Lisbon Way in Palm Desert, concurred that the location was not set yet but they were willing to go where the planning commission and city council felt was appropriate. Commissioner Spiegel asked if Mr. Odekirk wanted to wait three years for I-10 to go through; Mr. Odekirk stated that 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 he was aware of the conditions and wished it was sooner, but felt they could live with it as it was if that was the decision that was made. Commissioner Spiegel said that at one point there was a question about the wind in this area-- he asked if Mr. Odekirk was satisfied that it would not be disruptive. Mr. Odekirk stated that they were convinced that they could make the business succeed in that location. They would have to do some extra things to mitigate the wind that would not be necessary in Section 4 . Commissioner Spiegel asked if Mr. Odekirk' s project would be better off at Dinah Shore and Monterey Avenue across from the Price Club where there was a lot of traffic now. Mr. Odekirk said that they spent at least a month with the city council and staff researching other possible locations and that was not one of the alternatives given to him. Mr. Diaz said that with regards to the other locations that were looked at, the problem that arose with those locations was the extensive amount of public infrastructure costs that would be necessary for the project to proceed and it just made the project economically unfeasible at those sites . Among those sites were Monterey and Dinah Shore, and Portola and Gerald Ford. Commissioner Beaty stated that those numbers were going to be made available to anyone that wanted to see them; Mr. Diaz concurred--he said that was why those sites were eliminated. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the application before the commission. MRS. DEBBIE BYK, a Palm Desert resident, stated that she did not want the commission to think there was no one supporting this site. She was in support of the Cook Street site and thanked the commission for their consideration. MR. KEN KENDRIADES, 820 Old Ranch Road, a member of the Board of Directors for the Lakes Country Club, stated that they would not oppose the moving of the project to the Cook Street site and they preferred that to the other site. Being lower in elevation and down below in an area where the noise would not bother them as much as it would in the original site. Regarding the street, they were assured that there wouldn't be very much traffic anyway, so the fact that it was a dead-end street for a few years shouldn't bother anyone too much. He stated that they preferred the Cook Street location. MS. KIM JEFFERS, 75-195 Via Mansano in Palm Desert, stated that she was not opposed to the conditional use 12 two MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6 , 1994 `... permit being granted, but from her interpretation of Mr. Diaz ' s report, at this point it did not appear that the EIR was in on the Cook Street Interchange, which was going to be one of the factors of which issuing the current EIR exception, so her only feeling was that once that EIR was in, which was in direct correlation with this particular area, a decision should not be made in reference to the conditional use permit being issued at this particular time. It was her interpretation that it was still in the works and not complete and that seemed to be the area of most concern, such as burials and ruins . That was her only conflict--that once that was in and complete and approved, this project would be approved at that time. Chairperson Jonathan felt the timing issue needed to be clarified. There would be an EIR on the interchange and there would be an EIR on the college--he asked when the expected time line would be. Mr. Diaz clarified that he did not say there would be an environmental impact report on the interchange; the environmental process would be done on the interchange which includes those studies dealing with flora, fauna, archeological aspects . Those have been completed and there was a clear go on those. The only thing that was holding up the Cook Street Interchange, and was also holding up Monterey Expansion, was the issue of habitat and the Habitat Conservation Plan that was completed for the Fringe- Toed Lizard. At that time the feeling when the plan was completed, it was everyone' s understanding that plan included all animals within that habitat area. The Fish and Wildlife Service said it did not, it only dealt with the Fringe-Toed Lizard and so it was argued out for a number of years as to whether the plan did or didn't and that was finally resolved with the mitigation measures that have been imposed, which resulted in additional cost for land purchases for endangered species habitat. As far as the college environmental impact report, that would be done when the plan for the college would be done, which would take a while because they would be speaking to the neighbors and once the plans and drawings were started, they would do that report and from the time they started to when they completed the environmental impact, that would take about six months . He did not know when the six months would begin. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in FAVOR of the plan. There was no one. He asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposal . `� 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 JUDGE ARNOLD H. EINBINDER, RETIRED, 549 Desert Falls Drive East, Palm Desert, stated that he could not believe what he was hearing taking place at this meeting. He had Mr. Diaz indicating for all intents and purposes that he was "piggy backing" an EIR that was done for the Section 4 project and saying that it was okay to switch it from one location to another. If that was the case, he asked why anything other than one EIR for any particular part of the city needed to be done and then they could just piggy backing it to another. He stated that was impossible. Each section of the city that was undeveloped had different aspects in regard to traffic, noise, wind, and environment. He meant fauna and animals in the area. Irrespective of what Mr. Diaz said, there were additional animals in this location that would have to be dealt with. If they wanted to deal with them with the idea that they were going to wait for an environmental impact report and the commission would be relying on one that was now non- existent on the college and was non-existent on the interchange, then he felt the commission was doing themselves a disservice when the residents have advised them that all of these aspects, irrespective of Mr. Diaz ' s position, must be dealt with. He used traffic as an example. The commission was informed that for three years there would not be an interchange. That in a matter of six months or there about there would be a street, the extension of Cook Street to Gerald Ford. There might be a turn around there. That meant all the traffic, and he assumed there would be traffic going to this project because if there was no traffic, there would be no business--if there was no business, there would be no Mr. Odekirk. Assuming there was traffic, that traffic had no where to go but back onto Cook Street to come out of there. He asked if that meant there was no impact on the area when that traffic was going to the end of Cook Street at Gerald Ford and coming back? He felt certain there would be and that impact would be much more than it would be if there was an extension of Cook Street to the interchange, or there was an extension of Gerald Ford to Cook Street. There was no question that when it did happen, there would be a lot more alleviation of any difficult problems in traffic than there would not be otherwise. He stated that he was under the impression that irrespective of any threat of suit, and there was not any threat of suit in the letter that they submitted at the last meeting, the commission may have believed it so because it was 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6 , 1994 %ho• identifying information that should have led the commission to believe that an environmental impact report was going to be necessary. Mr. Diaz admitted that there would have to be an EIR for the college. Realizing that the 200 acres was designated for the college--they were only allowing a use for a particular period of time, a portion of that 25 +/- acres so that this project would be able to be utilized. They had done so with the knowledge of the college because the college would be utilizing the 40 acres at the corner of Frank Sinatra and Cook. They would not be going to the other extreme up north, which they would be able to expand to over the 25-year period they would have for the utilization of the full 200 acres . What happened at the end of that time he did not know, but that was immaterial . The point was that right now these things had to be addressed. The negative declaration did not do it. Relying on other aspects of other EIRs was he felt was ridiculous . Commission indicated that it wanted to be prudent--he felt it was more than being prudent. It was following the dictates that they are allowed to by virtue of their position. They were to be holding a hearing--it should not be at all instrumental as to whether a suit would be pending or not. Whether %NW the attorney said that it was okay. He stated that he had never heard this out of an attorney who had advised, presumably, that it was okay for the commission to have a negative declaration because an EIR was not required and relying on EIRs that were non-existent ( i .e. the one from the college and the one from the interchange) , as well as piggy-backing the EIR that was utilized for this project. He felt it should be understood that the city could do this, the planning commission could do this, but they could do this with the idea that if no one spoke up, then a negative declaration would go through. If the residents weren't at the meeting and a negative declaration came before the commission on whether an EIR was required or should have been required or not with no opposition recommendation from the city planning staff, they would go ahead and do it. He felt the commission had an obligation, each of them, to search and see for this particular project why it was going this way. If he ever had any objection to this project as opposed to Portola, the commission had made it evident from what they were doing that if they were having a problem with this project and a problem with Portola, then what sense was there to do anything other than what was left to them. He hoped the commission would search their minds "` 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 and hearts and realize that this was something that must be done--there must be an EIR. He asked why they should wait for an EIR on the college when they knew an EIR was going to be required for that area. If there was nothing going in and no reason for having a college there in the first place, and no EIR was required, he couldn' t even give them that excuse. From Mr. Diaz ' s own mouth it was said there would be a required EIR for the college, not because he wanted one, but because the state would require it. They would want to be sure that there were no environmental problems that someone would come back and complain to them about. Here they did not have the kind of power that was imposed upon the city to take heed at this aspect of it. MARLENE PISOKOFF, a Desert Falls resident, felt there were precedents that the commission took with the motions they passed that needed to be examined. She urged the commission to consider whether it was appropriate when they knew they had to have another look at the EIR in terms of the college and asked if they wanted to make a precedent by piggy-backing this location and saying if it was good for one area it was good for another. What they did with this particular project would reflect back on them and would also raise questions when other similar types of questions came into being as to whether it was appropriate to look at one area and another area even with proximity and just assume that the similarities were sufficient to be identical . There might be similarities, but she questioned whether they were identical . Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant wished to readdress the commission. Mr. Odekirk stated that he was leaving the decision up to the commission. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments . Commissioner Spiegel noted from what Mr. Diaz said, the moving of the ballfields to this location other than the fact that there could be something buried there and the city could not touch it anyway, was basically the same amount of traffic, light and noise pollution would be created as was in Section 4 . Mr. Diaz concurred. Commissioner Spiegel noted that the college was a different use. Mr. Diaz concurred. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 o.. Commissioner Spiegel indicated there would be a lot more people, cars, etc. Staff was saying that with this, unless permission was given by the city, there would be no more than 200 people at one time. Mr. Diaz concurred. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he would like to clarify one of Mr. Diaz ' s answers . The environmental impact report for Section 4 said that the impact of the traffic from this project on the intersection of Portola/Frank Sinatra was a certain number. He asked if the project was moved to Cook Street, of what relevance that part of the EIR was and how did they know the traffic impact on Cook Street or other intersections . He asked how the applicability of a traffic study on one location could be applied to another location. Mr. Diaz said that looking at the environmental impact report for the entire Section 4, the amount of traffic that was generated by this particular portion of the project was minuscule compared to the overall traffic generated. That small amount of traffic, whether generated from Portola or from Cook Street, would not have a significant adverse impact that could not be mitigated below the level of significance. That was how they could apply it. Also, because of the relative locations of the developments, the individuals going to that location until the interchange was completed and `• perhaps even after the interchange was completed, would be using the same streets : Cook Street off-ramp to Frank Sinatra, to Portola and into the development. In this case they would be going to Cook Street down to Gerald Ford and going into the development. Some might get off at Washington or Monterey to get there when the Cook Street on-ramp was done, but they had to presuppose that most people would take the closest route. This was how it could be done. As far as taking the information from one environmental impact report that was in the same immediate area and applying what they had learned from that report to another project in the same immediate area, to avoid duplication of that environmental impact report was something that the state had been striving to do and mentioned quite frequently in the guidelines of CEQA to try to speed up the answer process for prospective developers . This was not something new or different. He felt they should ask themselves if the concerns were really environmental here, or if they were something else. He believed that they were not environmental and could not be addressed in an environmental impact report. Commissioner Beaty felt there was no question that this project had the potential to generate some impacts, whether it was on the Portola site or Cook Street site. The 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 environmental impact report which was certified for the Portola site clearly identified those and imposed or suggested mitigation measures . He attended the meeting where council said those measures would be imposed. He noted that there had been controversy regarding the civic center ballfields and the lighting, the same potential impacts were there, the people from Monterey were understandably upset, but those same people have said that the city was right. That made him feel comfortable and with the statement from city staff, and direction by counsel, that there would be no impact from the lighting or from noise. There won't be one or the conditional use permit would be stopped until it was fixed. He felt that Judge Einbinder had a valid point temporarily on traffic. The amount of traffic generated from this facility would not be significant compared to the overall Section 4 area. He was assuming that the public works department was planning the street extension and construction of Cook Street to handle the trips generated by the interchange. There would be a line of cars coming out of there at 11 : 00 p.m. when the games finished, but looking at the staff report and/or initial study under transportation and circulation, the development would be required to pay the TUMF fees and other fees to mitigate the share of the traffic they generated. On noise, there would be no loudspeakers; there had been some concern about rock concerts--there would be no rock concerts, only charitable sporting events which Mr. Diaz read into the conditions of approval . He felt comfortable with "piggy-backing" although he did not feel that was completely the case because a lot of work had been done on the flora and fauna and that had been mitigated by the Coachella Valley Conservation Plan and he was comfortable with moving for approval and would do so at the appropriate time. Commissioner Spiegel stated that he did not necessarily agree that there would be a lot of traffic at 11 : 00 p.m. because they were talking about a maximum of 200 people at any one time and that was not that many cars--unless they had a major program that was only allowed during daytime hours on the weekend and had to get a city permit for a charitable type of event. Chairperson Jonathan noted that one of the findings necessary for approval for the conditional use permit was that the location assured fairly easy access . Cook Street would have a full interchange to I-10. He did not see a condition that construction could not proceed until the interchange was complete. He asked if one of the conditions necessary for 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 `.. approval was the interchange, but they were not conditioning the project on the interchange being in existence. Mr. Diaz stated that once the interchange was in, access would be easier, but the access should be relatively easy now. Once Cook Street and Gerald Ford were in, the access to the site would be relatively easy. Once the interchange was in, except for a few people, it would be very easy and he felt they should remember that this project would not be built overnight. The development disposition agreement still had to be approved and as a condition set forth, the lighting study had to be done prior to the issuance of any building permits, so that information had to be before them. Meanwhile the Cook Street Interchange was going on and if there was one project that almost everyone wanted completed, it was the Cook Street Interchange. It would not be that long of a gap between the two projects . Commissioner Spiegel noted that when Gerald Ford was finished, there would be traffic going that way also. Commissioner Beaty stated that he would move for approval with adoption of the negative declaration and the conditions as amended and the heading changed on the resolution. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the findings . Commissioner Spiegel asked if it was the intention that this project, as well as Section 4 , would go to council for them to consider the appropriate location. Mr. Diaz said that was not the idea, but was what essentially would happen. Commissioner Beaty felt that what council was attempting to do was give the residents of Desert Falls their choice, as well as the developer and city council . Chairperson Jonathan called for a vote. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson Jonathan voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1671, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-1 (Chairperson Jonathan voted no) . A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 8 : 27 P.M. CHAIRPERSON JONATHAN RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 8 : 32 P.M. . `` 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 C. Case No. TT 24539 Amendment #1 - CENTURY HOMES, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the conditions of approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 24539 to permit the construction of dwelling units which have lofts and overall building heights of 22 feet. Mr. Diaz stated that the staff report gave an extensive history of the site. What was being requested by Century Homes was the ability to construct a number of homes at a height of 22 feet. They were not two story homes--they were talking about building code definitions on what was two story and what was not. They would build single story homes with a loft. He realized that for some folks that might be the same as two story, but it was a legal point. The elevations before the commission had not been approved by the architectural review commission and it had to be returned to the commission for approval . It was the architectural commission' s feeling that until they knew if the additional height would be approved and where they would be approved, looking at and approving the elevations would be premature. The maps before the commission demonstrated what Century Homes wished and within a blue area to have a percentage of homes at a height of 22 feet with lofts and the other map showing the red area was staff ' s recommendation. The only homes that would be 22 feet along the street would be on the south that were on Hovley which would be across the street from a service industrial area. The homes along Via Cinta, across the street from Vista del Montanas, were to be the lower height of 18 feet that had been previously approved. The applicant wished the right to look at the additional lots along Via Cinta for some 22 foot high homes . The commission received some letters and one today from the Vista del Montanas area. During the architectural commission hearings there were some concerns from residents 600 feet away that they did not receive notices . They had also commented. The city notified within 300 feet of the project. It was staff ' s feeling that once a residence was far enough back and by using staff s proposed lots, that eliminated the line of site concerns on views . All the lots were already graded and the streets were in, so there would be no additional height given to any of those lots . The 22 feet wherever those homes were, would be within the existing elevations . Staff recommended that commission approve the amendment and adopt the 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 resolution that was attached to the staff report and that the area be limited to staff ' s proposal . Commissioner Spiegel asked how many homes had been built; Mr. Diaz replied 15. Commissioner Spiegel asked where they were located; Mr. Diaz said they were directly off Cook Street at the main entrance to the north abutting the Lakes . Commissioner Spiegel asked what the plan was for the rest of the lots not shown in either proposal . Mr. Diaz stated that the height would be at 18 feet and they would also be developed by Century Homes . He noted that there was a great deal of discussion on the proposed size of those homes and possibly adopting a La Quinta type ordinance; this was the first time this particular issue came up with regard to when a tentative tract was built and one size of home was done, and then a developer came in and wanted to build a different size of homes . It was his understanding that the issue had been worked out. There were also architectural design compatibility concerns and it was his understanding that on the 18 foot high homes that abut the already built homes, that those units had already been approved by the architectural commission. Commissioner Spiegel noted that on the drawing that staff was recommending, they were recommending that the developer develop fewer lots . Mr. Diaz `.. clarified that staff was recommending that the developer have fewer lots in which to develop the 22 foot homes, which was not that many fewer. Chairperson Jonathan asked which setback requirements would apply--the one listed for two story units or the one listed for one story units . Mr. Diaz replied the one for one story units. Chairperson Jonathan said that would mean that even the ones with the lofts, the setbacks would be the same as the one story units . Mr. Diaz concurred, because the lofts were defined as one story. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DENNIS CUNNINGHAM, 45-420 Desert Fox Drive in La Quinta, stated that he was director of projects for Century Homes for the Belmonte project. He said that before the commission was a two, three and four plan loft. The three plan had a highest ridge point of 21 feet; the four plan had a highest ridge point of 22 feet. From the back of the house, the majority of the house was 18 feet, only the ridge line was 21 or 22 feet in the loft section. He said they had chosen to plot 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 the homes internally, meaning they would not put them in the upper section where the existing homes were or along the Lakes area to be good neighbors . The reason that even though there was a small height difference with that one section, they felt they would defer to their neighbors on that. The reason they plotted them along Via Cinta was because there was a heavily wooded area between them, whereas in the other area they were directly behind the Lakes . There were no rear windows on the loft section. It was a flat roof area so there would be no rear impact. The line of sight he felt was mitigated by the fact that they only had that one section in the center which was the loft section. Commissioner Spiegel asked Mr. Cunningham to demonstrate on the map where the 22 and 21 foot homes would be built. Mr. Cunningham said they would like to work with a percentage of homes, not on exact lots . As mentioned by Mr. Diaz, across Hovley there was a two story building and a section zoned for office professional uses . Commissioner Whitlock asked for clarification on the mix of units the developer wanted to float the loft units--they were still talking about 31 potential lots on which to place them. Mr. Diaz noted that the number of units in the staff proposal was 33, not 31 as stated in the staff report, so the 40% would make it a maximum of 13 units, rather than 12 . Chairperson Jonathan noted that out of the 33 units, 13 could be lofts within the section proposed by staff. Commissioner Spiegel asked if Mr. Cunningham was agreeing with the area recommended by staff; Mr. Cunningham replied that at this point he was not, because as he explained, against the Via Cinta Street they were buffered by the street and a heavily wooded area on the other side and as seen by the design of the plan, it was a negative impact. Commissioner Spiegel clarified that the city was recommending 33 units and asked how many units the applicant was requesting. Mr. Diaz stated that Mr. Cunningham was requesting 40% of 45 and the city was recommending 40% of 33, which was a maximum of 13 and the applicant was asking a maximum of 15 . Chairperson Jonathan indicated that there were 45 lots in the applicant ' s proposal and it would be rounded off to 18 total . Commissioner Whitlock asked if those units would be floated within whatever area the commission decided was the boundary. Mr. Cunningham concurred. Commissioner Beaty noted that they were talking about the difference between 13 and 18 units that could be used for lofts . Mr. Cunningham concurred. Commissioner Whitlock asked if Mr. Cunningham was accepting 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6 , 1994 +�... the city' s recommendation of the boundary area; Mr. Cunningham replied that he had not decided yet. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the lines on the maps designated the lots which could potentially house the 22 foot loft units and besides the blue proposal by the applicant being larger than the red proposed by staff, it also made available other lots that were available as candidates for the 22 foot high lofts . It was not just a question of how many loft units he could get, but where they could be placed because the blue line designated a larger area. Mr. Cunningham stated that the reason they asked for that was because they would like the market to decide and get as much as they could out of it. The end result might only be ten, but they would like to have that market freedom. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Cunningham knew if he would be hampered by the two story setback requirements as opposed to the one story setback requirement, or if the lots were big enough. For example, the front setback on two story was 25 feet versus 20 feet; he asked if it would impact his ability to place the loft units on any of those lots . Mr. Cunningham replied that it would because none of the lots were the same dimensions and it would require lot line adjustments whenever they decided to do certain numbers . When the formula shrank it down, it required them to do more lot line adjustments to make everything work. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they went with staff ' s recommendation and there were a maximum of 13 lots in which the applicant could pick for construction loft units, were there 13 lots there that could accommodate the two story setback requirements without lot line adjustments . He noted that some of the lots were fairly large. Mr. Cunningham said he did not know because they were all individual . When the house size was moved around, then there were the widths between the two story elements which was part of that formula and it made it difficult to determine. Chairperson Jonathan said that as far as he understood the report, the only windows from the loft would face the front. Mr. Cunningham stated that was correct--none of the lofts "� 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 a would back up to existing homes or to the side to cause any problems . Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. There was no one. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the project. Commissioner Beaty asked for clarification that the only issue the commission was considering was the request for the height variance within the areas proposed by the applicant and recommended by staff . Mr. Diaz concurred. Commissioner Beaty asked if the cost of the home was still an issue; Mr. Diaz stated that it was his understanding that the size of the homes was worked out and the cost of the homes was determined by the laws of supply and demand. Commissioner Whitlock noted that they also had the ability of determining whether to go with the area proposed by the applicant or by staff . Mr. Diaz concurred. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that the applicant requested 18 lots in a designated area be allowed to accommodate 22 foot maximum heights . Staff was recommending 13 lots in a smaller area. Commissioner Spiegel noted that this project had already been approved by the planning commission on April 18, 1989 . Chairperson Jonathan noted that this was an amendment to that plan. MR. RICK FARBER, 6 Belmonte Drive, stated that he wanted to take exception to a couple of things Mr. Diaz said. The first thing Mr. Diaz said was that this was not a two story home. He said that if they understood the Uniform Building Code, there was no such thing as the term loft. There was a mezzanine or floor. A mezzanine was what the proposal was and in a high rise building or three story building it would be the floor between the first floor and the third level if it was three stories . The mezzanine could only consume a third of the area of the floor below and had other ramifications involved. It was a two story home. What the commission would be approving was a two story home. He said that access was from a complete flight of stairs just as they would be on any two story home. The other thing that came into effect was what happened a year down the line when someone built one of the loft homes and wanted to put a bathroom up there or wanted to add something like a window. The privacy of the person next door could be invaded. Just looking out the front window to see what was going on across the way. He felt there were other aspects involved. Belmonte Estates was originally approved as one story homes with a definitive site plan 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6 , 1994 r... and phase 1 was totally plotted out. It was on exhibit at the building and engineering departments . He said that he had visited those departments and seen that. In the process of purchasing the homes, they were told that these were the models . All the exhibits were on the wall and those were the exhibits presented to planning commission and all the government agencies that had jurisdiction over this project. They were approved and they purchased their homes based on the fact that the next phase would be built in accordance with the exhibits on the wall ( floor plans, elevations, etc . ) . His neighbor recently moved from a two story home and bought in Belmonte because it was one story. He lived in an area where there were two story homes . There was something within the original CC&R's of Belmonte Estates on page 37 that said that each unit shall be constructed as a single story residence. Lofts, etc. , shall be prohibited in order to avoid possible interference of privacy of the owners on adjacent lots . That was the most critical aspect of this, plus when thinking of the streetscape, when driving through a project they would see a beautiful start of a complex. Then there would be two story models popping up. It would take on an entirely different effect. They would lose the total r.. environment that they thought they bought into and what they thought they would see two years later. He stated that he did not think that Century Homes was the owner of the land; he felt that Triad was still the owner of the land. He said that Triad Pacific received the approvals and went through the review process and were given approval and conditions of approval . One of the conditions of approval for PP 87-20 said that the development shall conform substantially with the exhibits on file with the department of community development--that was Mr. Diaz 's department. He felt that if there was going to be developers going through the entire process of ARC, planning commission, city council and then receiving a yes; then someone else should not be able to come in with the attitude that they could build anything they wanted. Originally Century Homes came to them and said they were going to develop and showed them what they intended to develop. Their smallest home started at 1506 square feet and their smallest home started at 2132 square feet. Century Homes ' largest home was smaller than their smallest home, if the additional items were not added. He did not believe optional items could be relied on. Mr. Farber referred to the zoning and planning program �"� 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 adopted by the city and said that the goals were to develop a land use pattern that took optimum advantage of the city' s natural assets including views, mountain areas and the desert floor. The highest roof was 18 feet. They were not only talking about height, but the privacy factor as well as the entire environment of a community. People moved in because it was a one story community. He stated that he was an architect and felt any good architect could design a house of that size on one level . There were lots there that were 15,000 square feet. He asked why they had to build two story homes when the city approved one story homes . No one had been able to give him an answer to that. Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Farber felt he would be impacted from a privacy standpoint; Mr. Farber stated he was worried about the entire project and strongly felt the value of his property would be affected. MR. TOM O'NEIL, 14 Belmonte, stated that Mr. Farber addressed most of the issues that most of the residents were concerned about. That was the general look of the community. Another issue was that while some deference was given to the existing residents, there was also a concern by the current builder to not want to disturb the Lakes . He asked that if a loft home was allowed, if he could come to the commission and ask for permission to add a second floor to his home. The commission would be allowing part of the community to do something the other part of the community couldn't. In doing so, the general look of the community would be totally different from the original plan. It was their opinion that Century Homes should abide by the original plan. He did not see any detriment to anyone who wanted to build there by sticking to the original plan. MR. BARRY HACKSHAW, 17 Belmonte, stated that his view was of the entire 74 valley. He felt that one issue not addressed was that the blue area defined was not at the same ground elevation as the existing homes, but a higher piece of land. He had been concerned about his view even from when the single story homes went in exactly where the roof line would go. He stated that this was not a flat piece of land and showed commission on the map where the highest portion of the land was located. Also, to go down their street right now on a single story development and have a setback of 20 feet was reasonable. The lofts were on the front of these 26 lid MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 �.. homes and the impact was directly over the garage. To put these houses at a similar distance from the road would have a tremendous difference to the openness and the aesthetic appearance not being setback as a standard two story house would be. From looking at that from the front from standing on the street and exactly what they saw, having that much height that much closer to the road definitely changed the impact in this development. He was one of the first purchasers there and he strictly stayed away from two story developments in that area. Seeing the lots and plans developed for that area made him choose there. He had strong feelings about any modification to that and the land on which those elevations were proposed. Commissioner Spiegel asked if the layout was basically the same when Mr. Hackshaw bought there. Mr. Hackshaw stated that the lots were exactly the same. The roads were in and the lots were in. There were A, B and C diagrams for each lot. The entire development was planned. MR. PAUL BAKRAN, stated that he and his wife of 55 years +�• have resided in Palm Desert for 32 years . They had seen it growing and they went through many homes . He said they also lived in La Quinta Highlands and paid extra for the view lot. They went on vacation and Century City built in front of them with their "cracker boxes" . Then they found Belmonte and it appealed to them. It was a gated community with beautiful homes and the whole setup pleased them. The lots were staked out, the streets were in and they were assured that the homes would be built with the same character as theirs . He asked the commission to deny the building permit issuance to Century Homes for 22 foot high homes . They would take away from the character of the whole community and it would change. MS. MARGARET GLEGLING, Unit 20 in Belmonte, stated that she had attended the architectural committee meetings and they had not yet approved the home plans . They were still working on them. She felt they were all told when they purchased their homes that the same homes would be built. They liked what they saw and felt they were architecturally beautiful homes . They were quite shocked, especially when they were shown the original presentation from Century Homes . They had come up quite `' 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 b a bit as far as meeting the architectural plans they had, but all of the residents were opposed to the loft homes . They did not see why they were needed. The lots were large enough to make the homes bigger. She noted that her home was 2600 square feet. There were quite a few lots that were larger where they could build a larger one story home. She asked that commission keep that in mind that they had the space out there and when Dr. Hackshaw said that the lot elevations were different, that was definitely so. There were four feet of sand that had blown in and she hoped the city would make sure that they cleared all the lots down to level to where the curb was because there was a minimum of four feet of sand that had blown in on many of the lots . She would like that to be addressed. Chairperson Jonathan stated that would be taken care of because there was an approved pad elevation height and the inspectors would be out there before construction to ensure that construction complied with the approved plan. Ms . Glegling stated that another concern was that originally they planned to build models up front near the gate; now they were not going to build them because the trailer they installed was going to be temporary and as soon as the models were built it would be gone. Now they were being told that they were not going to build the models and the trailer would stay there. Chairperson Jonathan stated that was not something they could help with; Commissioner Spiegel felt it would be worth a complaint to the city. Commissioner Whitlock noted that Ms . Glegling indicated that her home was 2600 square feet and asked if she was familiar enough with the rest of the floor plans to tell her what the square footage range was for the existing homes; Ms . Glegling felt it was approximately 2132 to 2604 . She stated that they were all three bedroom/three bath homes . MS. MARILYN FARBER, 6 Belmonte Drive, stated that she did not understand why they were all there tonight talking about the loft when she went into the sales trailer and they already had sold signs over all the homes with lofts . She asked how it was possible to sell homes with lofts when it hadn' t been approved. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 r... Chairperson Jonathan said that was something that would have to be addressed by the people in the sales trailer. MR. KENNY WALKER, 21 Belmonte Drive, stated that they moved out here from Missouri two years ago and it took them two years to find a spot where he and his wife wanted to live. They looked in La Quinta, in Rancho Mirage and all over the desert. They found a place on Belmonte Drive that they both liked and it was out of the wind area, was a beautiful neighborhood, and he bought the property about four months ago. When he bought the property four months ago, he was told how to build the house. It had to be a certain size, to have a certain look, and had to conform to the surrounding houses . His house was a new one and was approximately 2500 square feet with a three car garage. He did not have a desire to build a two story house, but he worried because the back of his house faced the mountains and it was a quite pretty view. He was not too sure how the proposed houses would effect him, but he was sure a two story house would effect him more than a one story house. The lot behind his property stepped up at least 30 inches . He felt it would be a foot rise when everything was done, plus another four feet on top of +� that would effect him a bit. He stated that he appreciated the commission' s concerns and efforts . He said they were proud of the area they lived in. MR. SCOTT CHAPMAN, 13 Belmonte Drive, stated that he was opposed to the two story or loft home and he and his wife moved there about a year ago and were happy with the community they had and hoped Century could build homes that were one story and consistent with what they expected. MS. KIM JEFFERS, 75-195 Via Mansano in Palm Desert, stated that she was a homeowner within the Vista del Montanas complex which was going to be impacted by this proposed change. Their main entrance was along Via Cinta which was noted earlier. She felt the description of the heavily wooded area was comical . They had eucalyptus and medallions and that type of landscaping, but all the homes bordering Via Cinta and beyond that had views of the mountains and they would be impacted by any height disruptions . The heavily wooded area was a bit of an over statement. That influenced their main entrance and she was greatly concerned because they had views of the mountains now and they were sensational . �" 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6 , 1994 t The industrial park on the south side of Hovley had tremendous views of which they had their leases purchased in that building and those would be compromised as well . The Cook Street complex on the southeast corner would be influenced by the two story homes . Whether they had been made aware of that or not, she did not know. She said her heart really went out to the residents because they had a beautiful community and she was envious of their homes . The proposed homes were not comparable in terms of standards to the existing homes in the complex. She was surprised anyone would consider purchasing one of the homes and she would not buy into that community because it would be aesthetically changed dramatically. She noted that they had the same situation in La Quinta--they decided to move into Palm Desert and she wished they would move to Timbuktu. She stated that if they had done their homework, prior to the original acceptance of the commonly known Belmonte Estates, the height was of great concern five or six years ago when it was initially proposed. There was a lot of anger and disruption and finally the commission agreed. She did not want to see the commission renege on their commitment to the existing homeowners, the existing community, because what they would be doing was allowing a stranger to come in and infringe upon their financial investments and if they wanted to buy her home, fine, but she was not willing to stay there. MR. CLARENCE SCHULTZ , 10 Belmonte Estates, stated that he was lied to when he bought that house because each lot was supposed to be built like his home. That included three bedrooms, three baths and three car garages . He stated that he had a nice living room, a pool, jacuzzi, and a lovely walk-in pantry in his kitchen. It was the finest home and was equal to million dollar homes . He asked the commission to visit that area and see the homes to look at them. MS. JUDY CHAPMAN, 75-230 Vista Juarto in Vista del Montanas, stated that she was on the Board of Vista del Montanas . They were pleased to see anyone coming in to pick up the rest of the project because it had been stopped for so long, but they had a big problem with the height of the buildings and they were on the other side of the "heavily wooded area" , which they could easily see through. They felt the courtesy given to the 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 existing homes and to the Lakes should also be given to them. MR. PAUL JOHNSON, 75-235 Valencia, stated that he was in Vista del Montanas and was President of the Board. They had made no formal declaration on this matter but felt he spoke for the board by saying that they would request that the commission deny the request. They were concerned about the loft homes at 22 feet and there was no question in their minds that it would be detrimental and impact their views of the mountains . He appreciated commission' s consideration. MR. ROGER BOISTER, 75-250 Via Domingo, concurred with previous statements on the height impacting the view within Vista del Montanas, especially to the west. They saw a good view of the mountains throughout the community and the height of the roofs would impact that view. MS . RUTH BLAIR, 41-825 Vargo stated that she was opposed to the proposal . Mr. Farber readdressed the commission and felt there `.. seemed to be a question of four feet, but the impact difference on that for a six foot person, an 18 foot height was 12 feet above that and 22 feet was 16 feet, which was a third higher and the view differential from that when walking down the street was considerable. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. Mr. Cunningham asked the commission to look at the area they were talking about for the loft area. He said they were looking at a triangular area and stated the homes would be 18 feet in the rear and the area in front would be 21 or 22 feet. He stated that the owners of the project were Belmonte Associates, a limited partnership between Triad and Century Homes and the declarant in the CC&R's brought up earlier, and the declarant of which Belmonte Associates Ltd. Partnership was exempt. He asked if there were any questions . Commissioner Whitlock asked what the square footage was of the home with the loft. Mr. Cunningham replied approximately 2700 square feet; the homes in Belmonte would range from 1958 square feet, which was about 5% below their smallest house, `�"` 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 i and ranged up to 3000 square feet, which was a little over 10% higher than their highest. As far as price range, the homes were bought at auction or just after auction during an auction process . Their homes averaged the same price as what the existing homes were bought for. He noted that two homes were not bought at auction, but the balance of the homes were bought at auction or after auction. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Beaty asked if the issue before them was to allow 13 homes of this height, or 18 homes of this height, or whether to allow none of these homes to be build. Mr. Diaz confirmed that all three were options . Chairperson Jonathan noted that the application was for an amendment to the previously approved project and the amendment was asking for 18 homes that were the loft units . He confirmed the commission could respond in any way they wanted. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she remembered this project and she remembered that there were originally apartment units involved as well . She was delighted when they came back and end removed the apartment building and went with the single family home lots . She personally did not have a problem with the additional four feet, but she hoped that if she were an owner in this project, and they had seen many tonight, that if she wasn' t here that someone would represent her. If there was so much opposition to the proposed four feet, she felt it was incumbent upon her to not approve the amendment because these residents were given a plan as to what they thought the entire project was going to look like. Everyone that had a view of the mountains enjoyed it and she hated to see that lost as well . Although she did not disapprove of the look of the floor plan and the front window, she appreciated what the owners were going through and therefore could not vote for approval . Commissioner Spiegel felt that lofts had no place in Palm Desert. He had a personal problem with a loft and his privacy had been usurped because of a loft. He felt 18 feet was high enough and he would not like to buy a house across from the loft with a window in the front and there seemed to be adequate space to build houses from 2100 square feet. He was opposed to loft homes in this area. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 Now Chairperson Jonathan stated that he completely agreed with Commissioner Whitlock. He did not have a problem on occasion with two stories or lofts, but felt the applicant should understand that this commission was very sensitive to the opinions and the needs of the existing neighbors . When an applicant has done their homework and gotten some degree of support from their neighbors, in that situation approval from the planning commission would be easier to obtain if there was such concurrence with the neighbors . They would not normally have a problem with the proposal, but when there was a second elevation the commission had to be persuaded by the consensus expressed by the neighbors . He concurred with what had been said. He called for a motion to request that staff prepare a resolution of denial . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . VIII . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A �w•• MS. NENA TULL, 43-155 Tennessee Avenue in Palm Desert, was present to discuss the miscellaneous item. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Continued item: Request for a Determination of Use to allow dog boarding in association with an existing dog grooming shop at 73-260 E1 Paseo, Suite No. 2-E - Ritzi Rover Pet Grooming. MS. NENA TULL, 43-155 Tennessee Avenue in Palm Desert, stated that she was the owner of the Ritzi Rover Pet Grooming Shop on E1 Paseo. She said it was located inside the Swan Center which was a small plaza at the corner of Sage and E1 Paseo. She stated that she would like to be allowed to board dogs overnight. She has owned the shop for three years and to her knowledge there had not be anyone complaining about noise or excessive noises around that area. She stated that she had a lot of requests from her customers to keep dogs, which she did in her home. There was enough requests for it that she took this action and decided to ask the commission if they would allow her to do this . She also "'w 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6 , 1994 asked her neighbors which were in the same complex and each and every one of them agreed, with the exception of her new neighbor whom she did not know yet and would be a dentist office, but she did not think he objected to dogs or he wouldn' t have opened his office next door to her. The other was a doctor who was never there, so she could not get letters from those two. She stated that she had signed letters from Donald Yokaitis, her landlord and the owner of the complex, the Dakota Bar and Grill, J. Lewis Bowker, Allstate Insurance, Salon De Carlo, Hot Tip Nails, Mom's Silk Flowers, and Professional Bookkeeping. She stated those were all of the tenants in the complex with exception of the two she mentioned. Not one of them objected. Commissioner Spiegel noted that since the meeting was some time ago, he asked if Ms . Tull had an opportunity to talk to the E1 Paseo Business Association. Ms . Tull stated that she did speak to Sonia Campbell on the phone and it was her understanding that they were not in favor of this . Commissioner Spiegel asked if Ms . Tull received a copy of the letter that was sent to the planning commission. Ms . Tull replied not from them. Mr. Diaz stated that she received a copy from planning staff. Ms . Tull stated that she talked to Ms . Campbell and invited her to the shop so that she could see the type of operation that she had. Ms . Campbell did not decline, but she did not say she would like to either. She then asked Ms . Campbell if anyone on their committee had even been in her shop and if they had, she doubted they would object to the request. She asked if she could attend their meeting to tell them more of what she was requesting and Ms . Campbell said she would let her know when their next meeting was . She was notified two days before the meeting, which was just before Thanksgiving and one of their busiest times in the whole year, that she was allowed to come to that meeting to speak and she could not do it. She couldn't go to the December meeting either because it fell during one of the busiest weeks of the whole year. She was going to be on the agenda in January to propose to them what she would like to do. Commissioner Spiegel asked if was important that Ms . Tull begin this before January. 34 %00 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 �•• Ms . Tull replied no necessarily, but at the time she sent this letter to the commission, the building next door to her was available for her to expand. It was not now, but she could do the same thing in her current facility--it would just not be the same size. The facility she has was private enough that if they wanted to take a dog out the back for a walk, it was easy to do. Something else she wanted to mention as far as the E1 Paseo Association was concerned was that since she requested this and they wrote that letter, they have allowed a dog grooming shop right on E1 Paseo about two blocks from her and there was no private area there for people to walk their dogs . Why they would allow that facing El Paseo and not allow her, an existing shop, to board overnight dogs she did not understand and she would address that with them. She asked for the commission' s consideration of the matter and wanted to be allowed to expand her business in that way. Mr. Diaz stated that staff would recommend in terms of the determination that the city allow this as a temporary use in her current building. The existing tenants did not have a problem and at night there was no one on E1 Paseo and if a barking dog could be heard, it would deter people from going in. He recommended that this be allowed to go in as a temporary use in the area and the determination being that the use should be allowed in the building if none of the existing tenants who might be impacted had no objection, rather than go through a whole conditional use report on this . He suggested six months and if there was a problem and the neighbors objected, and having talked to Ms . Tull in the past, he was sure that she would stop the use. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the time period could be extended and suggested 18 or 24 months. Mr. Diaz stated that they could go for any period of time with the understanding that if someone had a complaint that it was a nuisance, it would be back to the commission for review. Commissioner Spiegel asked if the El Paseo Business Association knew they would be discussing this tonight. Mr. Diaz said that the item had been continued and continued and assumed they didn' t. He said he could let them know what the commission' s decision was and say that it was final unless appealed to the council within 15 days . The concern that staff had from the outset was that the decision was made back in September and the applicant was not afforded an opportunity to make a presentation to the board and after `� 35 . ._ ....__..._.._ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 another meeting was established, it was in the height of the season. When he spoke to Ms . Tull he asked what her neighbors thought and she went out and got all the letters . If the El Paseo Association had a problem, they could appeal the decision. Chairperson Jonathan noted that Ms . Tull ' s application went back to July 1994 and at the request of the El Paseo Association it was postponed and postponed. In their letter they said it was not deemed necessary by the board to consult Ritzi Rover Dog Grooming. He felt the commission should give Ms . Tull a two-year permit and let her proceed. He asked if there was a motion to that effect. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, granting a two-year temporary use permit to allow Ritzi Rover Pet Grooming to allow dog boarding in the existing grooming shop at 73-260 El Paseo by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None. XI . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE VM4 Mr. Diaz noted that the main item of discussion at the November 29 , 1994 EDAC meeting was fuel cells . XII . COMMENTS None. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adjourning the meeting to December 20f, 1994 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was ajt urned at 9 : 50 p.m. RAMON A. DIAZ, AcrVary ATTEST: SABBY JONAIPHAN, Chairperson Palm Dese Planning Commission /tm 36