Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0307 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1995 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER r•• 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 Whitlock led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty (arrived after approvai of minutes) Sonia Campbell George Fernandez Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None +�• Staff Present: Ray Diaz Steve Smith Joe Gaugush Donna Bitter Marshal Rudolph IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the February 21, 1995 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the February 21, 1995 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0-1, Commissioner Campbell Abstaining. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent February 23, 1995 city council actions . VI . CONSENT CALENDAR None. �r.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 rr/ VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. VAR 95-1 - TERRY ROSS, Applicant Request for approval of a variance to Section 25 . 16 . 050 of the Municipal Code (development standards for R-1 lots) specifically to reduce the required street side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet to allow for a remodel and addition to the dwelling at 44-625 San Clemente Circle. Mr. Smith noted that the plans were distributed to the commission just before the meeting and apologized for them not being in the packets . He reported that the site plan indicated the location, the amount, and the type of variance the applicant is seeking. As well, staff distributed a page provided by the applicant outlining the findings that are necessary in order to grant the variance as requested. The remodel plans were presented by Mr. Smith noting that it is an older, smaller home in a neighborhood that is turning around. There are two � recently constructed new homes immediately to the east. Mr. Smith added that it is one of the smaller, narrower lots in the neighborhood. It is a corner lot fronting on San Clemente Circle and it sides onto San Marcos which dead ends at the boundary wall for the Hacienda de Monterey senior community to the north. The public works department advises that it is pretty unlikely that the street would ever be continued through and that we have buildings and a complete community on the other side of the wall . It is not shown on the general plan as a future street. It could be that at some point in the future the street would be vacated back to the adjacent properties; however, it is difficult given that there is a fire hydrant on the north side of San Marcos, as well there are catch basins on either side of San Marcos . Therefore, it is likely that it will remain in its present state and San Marcos will be a totally unused street. With that background, Mr. Smith felt that the findings can be made to grant the variance and recommended that commission grant the approval so that Mr. Ross can remodel, make the addition, and upgrade the property. 2 '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 `rr Chairperson Jonathan o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TERRY ROSS, a resident of Palm Desert for ten years, stated that his goal was to improve the property to enable it to blend in with the surrounding properties that are pre-existing. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed variance. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Whitlock felt that the remodel would be a nice addition to the area as well as help the owners of the existing surrounding properties . Commissioner Fernandez agreed with Commissioner Whitlock. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner � Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1684 , appraving VAR 95-1 as submitted. Carried 5-0 . B. Case Nos . GPA 94-2, C/Z 94-3, PP 94-7 - F & M ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Planned Residential and Resort Commercial to District Commercial (PC-2} and a Precise Plan of Design to permit construction of an 81,747 square foot retail shopping center on 8 . 7 acres at the northeast corner of Deep Canyon Road and Highway 111 . Mr. Smith presented the details of the existing zoning in the area, as well as the subject property. The highway frontage portion of the site is presently zoned PC-4 which is resort commercial, while the northerly portion �`` 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 ' ; � of the site is zoned PR-5, planned residential - 5 units per acre. This zoning could permit single family homes, apartments, or a hotel . In fact, a hotel was approved on this site in 1986 . The request also encompasses a need to change the general plan from core area commercial to district commercial which would then be consistent with the zoning that is being requested in that the applicant seeks a zone change to PC-2 which is district commercial as the prime use on this site will be a supermarket. As well it is anticipated that there will be three pads created with a total of 21, 000 square feet of future retail/office use and the PC-2 zone permits a fairly wide range of commercial uses . The supermarket proposal at 16,700 square feet with the future pad uses for 21, 000 square feet. This site basically appears flat, but in actuality there is a slope from the highway as you proceed north. The site actually drops 10 feet. It is a large site at 8 . 7 acres . Mr. Smith indicated that the previous approval from 1986 has expired and it was not implemented. The site does contain almost two rows of date palm trees across the north side of the property. These are located in an approximate 50 foot wide band. The proposal has been �, before the Architectural Review Commission twice and a� their last meeting they granted conceptual approval . They were looking for some additional changes to the major building, trying to reduce the apparent impact of the size of the building, especially on the west side as it would appear from Deep Canyon Road. Mr. Smith outlined the site plan showing the parking off Highway 111, with the supermarket building located on the northerly portion of the site. As indicated previously, there are three pads along Deep Canyon Road, again with parking adjacent to those pads . There is one access from Highway 111, which is a right in and a right out only. There are two access points from Deep Canyon Road. One access will align with Allesandro and that would be a full movement access point. There will be a second access to the site from a point 140 feet north of Allesandro. This would be a right in and right out only again. Mr. Smith noted that Deep Canyon Road is a designated no truck route, so trucks will not be coming down Fred Waring Drive to Deep Canyon Road to enter this site. They will be coming from Highway 111 only. On site circulation appears acceptable to provide for the � , 4 '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 �.r trucks and the traffic on the site. Parking requirement is for a minimum of 450 spaces for the size of buildings proposed. They have shown 457 spaces . Mr. Smith noted that the proposal at 8 . 7 acres does not encompass all the property within it ' s perimeter. The northerly piece of property is a 25 ' x 25 ' existing well site that used to serve the date palm grove and some other facilities in the area. The second piece is 100 ' x 341 ' . The project that has been submitted to us works around these pieces that are not included. Staff asked why these pieces were not included and was told that the developer could not come to an agreement with the two property owners . If the general plan amendment and the zone change are passed, it would not include the two pieces described. Staff has provided conditions in the draft resolution on the precise plan that will require this applicant to guarantee access to both parcels through easements. The larger parcel could lend itself at some point in the future, even under it' s existing zoning of PC-4 , to a restaurant use. Mr. Smith indicated that this site could support a 6 , 000 square foot restaurant with 75 parking spaces . � - Loading docks are shown across the north side of the market facility. They have shown extensive landscape berming across the north side of the loading docks in an effort to reduce the noise and the impacts which would be created in that area. As well, the A.R.C. has indicated that they are looking for additional landscape treatment in that area in order to try and mitigate further the reflective noise they felt could occur. In addition, staff has a condition relating to the noise requiring trucks to be turned off and that the trucks have to be built after a certain year. These are noise conditions that have been taken from other supermarkets that staff has reviewed. The architecture is contemporary/desert. Tower elements are placed across the south elevation with a large trellis across the west elevation. The trellis shade structure will not only provide shaded parking, but it will also help to lower the impact of the building when viewed from Deep Canyon. � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 � � � � A major environmental impact that staff identified was traffic . The I .T.E. trip manual has an expectation of 5,700 trips per day to this center at build out. Given that we are bringing in another supermarket to serve that end of the city of which there is no existing supermarket in the city (the nearest supermarket being Ralphs in Indian Wells) , we would not expect to see that much traffic in that we will be taking off on existing supermarkets, so we will be decreasing traffic in other areas and these people would be traveling shorter distances . Staff feels that a negative declaration of environmental impact can be certified. The applicant has been meeting with area residents for some time. The notices were mailed out more than three weeks ago, and only one call was received. This call was from Mr. Godecke. Mr. 5mith met with him on several occasions and understands that he has also met with the applicant. There was a letter received today from F & M Associates, which was distributed to the commission. This letter contained 22 additional conditions which they apparently have worked out with area residents, including ; Mr. Godecke. We suggest that these conditions be added � as "Exhibit C" to the precise plan. Staff recommended � that commission adopt the findings and the resolutions for the general plan amendment, the change of zone, the precise plan of design, and the negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates thereto. This would also include the additional conditions that have been submitted by F & M Associates . Commissioner Whitlock asked iF she was correct in noting that the Architectural Review Commission had not given final approval to the plans . Mr. Smith replied that this was correct. Commissioner Whitlock asked why then was the plan before the commission without having their final approval . Mr. Smith indicated that staff allowed for two A.R.C. meetings, and at the second meeting last Tuesday, February 28th, the commission did grant it conceptual approval . The change that they are looking for involves the roof element on the west side for the south half of the building. They are looking for some indented situation or a stepping of the roof in that area to try and step it down. The A.R.C. was not comfortable enough with what they saw to grant preliminary approval; however, the plan before the commission tonight is going � to be reasonably close to what the final version is . � � 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 r.. This plan does reflect the lower tower elements which A.R.C. requested. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the first driveway entry and exit access off Deep Canyon would be the one that would align with Allessandro. Mr. Smith replied that this was correct. She questioned that this would be the only driveway that would allow anyone exiting the property to make a left hand turn to go out to Highway 111 . Mr. Smith noted that this was corr�ct, but they could also access Highway 111 west bound from the Highway 111 access . Commissioner Whitlock asked if the only stop sign at Allessandro would be for the traffic traveling east on Allesandro, noting that there would not be an actual three way stop on Deep Canyon because of the proximity to Highway 111 . Mr. Joe Gaugush indicated that there would be no stopping of Deep Canyon traffic . It would be a typical cross intersection with Allessandro and the shopping center entry being the stop condition. Commissioner Whitlock asked if there was a reason why staff has not requested some sort of a median on Highway 111 from the exit of the property on Highway 111 to Deep Canyon. Mr. Gaugush noted that the median is required. �• He indicated that there would not be a median break, but � a median that would not permit movements . It will be a controiled right turn in, right turn out, entry/exit on the highway. Commissioner Whitlock asked if there had been any problems at other supermarkets with the delivery hours where we have conditioned a 10 : 00 p.m. cut-off for deliveries as stated in this proposal . She asked if the 10 : 00 p.m. cut-off has been our standard with other markets, i .e. on Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue. Mr. Smith noted that the most recent market reviewed was the Ralphs at Country Club Drive and Cook Street, and 10 : 00 p.m. is the time placed on this market. Commissioner Whitlock asked if staff is aware of any problems with this time frame, that we should perhaps be considering an earlier cut-off . Mr. Smith indicated that we have not had a problem as yet with the 10 : 00 p.m. cut- off for the Ralphs market reviewed. Chairperson Jonathan asked what the revised height was on the towers . Mr. Smith indicated that the towers were at 46 ' originally, but they have stepped down the corner ones to significantly lower than that. r.. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 � Chairperson Jonathan asked if there would be acceleration � and deceleration lanes on Highway 111 . Mr. Gaugush replied that there would be a deceleration lane at the project entry and a right turn lane onto Deep Canyon creating four lanes . Commissioner Jonathan asked if this is normally required as a condition of approval or if it is something that is included in the approval process as it proceeds . Mr. Gaugush replied that it is a typical condition of approval for this type of a center and referred to the newest center "Desert Crossing" as an example. Chairperson Jonathan discussed his concerns with the applicants condition No. 10 referring to trash bins . He asked if specified locations for the trash bins were indicated. Mr. Smith noted that the Zocations were not specified at this point. Chairperson Jonathan asked how this would be addressed to avoid the situation where a restaurant would be added and they want to place their trash bin right next to their satellite pad. Mr. Smith noted that the development of the satellite pads will be handled in the future by precise plan reviews of those applications through this commission. The supermarket � will be taking care of its own trash at this point, and the applicant can describe the trash mechanism they have in mind for this location. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff felt it was necessary to provide for the trash bin location at this point, or if they are comfortable with finding appropriate locations for trash bins as subsequent tenants come in. Mr. Smith felt that there was enough slack in the proposed plan that it should not be create a problem in the future. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the applicant 's proposed condition No. 21 conflicts with the community development condition No. 10 which allows deliveries to begin at 6 : 00 a.m. Mr. Smith noted that staff would be prepared to amend the community development condition to be consistent with the condition proposed by the applicant where it is more restrictive. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff had any objections to the applicant ' s proposed conditions . Mr. Smith noted that the applicant' s proposed conditions places more restriction on the applicant than the city would normally impose. Mr. Smith noted his concern where they are i agreeing to not comply in the future for certain uses on � 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 �.. the site and asked that the city attorney comment on the issue. Chairperson Jonathan agreed with this concern and asked if something like this would be binding or can a property owner come in later and request a revision. Mr. Diaz replied that this condition can be recorded on the property; however, anyone can come in and ask for a revision of that condition. If the development does not proceed, and another developer comes in, staff would recommend that this condition be recorded on the property. Commissioner Campbell questioned Condition No. 22 regarding the hours of operation for pad tenants and the "Major Tenant" shall be 6 : 00 a.m. until 12 : 00 a.m. daily. If you have a restaurant of the caliber of Mortons coming in, can they come back to �he commission to ask for extra time to be open until 1 : 00 a.m. or 2 : 00 a.m. Mr. Smith answered that yes they can come back and ask for it. He indicated that Mortons, in its existing location at Country Club Drive and Cook Street, does operate under that condition at this point in time. They have not seen fit to come forward and ask for extended hours . It would be up to the commission, after a public hearing, to +r.� decide whether or not you would wish to amend the � condition. Mr. Diaz added that any condition listed in the resalution would require another public hearing in order for it to be modified. Chairperson Jonathan o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICHARD FRANDSEN, a resident of Indian Wells and a principal of F & M Associates, stated that he was present to answer any questions and introduced his architect and partner, Mike Mahoney. He indicated that the letter sent to the adjoining homeowners is their attempt to mitigate all of their concerns that were expressed at the meetings held with them. The extra three or four conditions received tonight were the result of their discussions with the neighbor across Deep Canyon. Additional conditions made were that there would be no car wash, no free standing liquor store, and no restaurant larger than 5,000 square feet on the second pad north of Highway 111 . All the rest of the conditions remain the same. �.► 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 � MR. MIKE MAHONEY, a resident of Laguna Beach and partner of Richard Frandsen on the proposed shopping center. He noted that he was informed at the beginning of proposing the project that they would have to satisfy their neighbors . These neighbors would be Embassy Suites, Hidden Palms and the residents across Deep Canyon Road. He stated that they wanted to put together a structure that would compliment the Embassy Suites structure. With their lobby being on the side of the building towards the proposed building, they wanted to place their building far enough away to where it did not become obtrusive to their building and did not block the view across Highway 111 from their lobby. The other thing they did on the site plan was to intensify the landscaping along the property line facing their property and articulate that elevation. One concern of Embassy Suites was their view from their third story. Only minor equipment would be placed on the roof and it would be screened. A water element was picked up from the Embassy Suites as well . The majority of the neighbors to the rear that seem to be most affected are the residents of Hidden Palms . He noted that � these residents were their biggest concern when they first looked at the property. Mr. Mahoney added that they also wanted to bring back the concept of the date grove and intends on keeping the two rows of existing date trees at the rear of the property, adding a wall towards the supermarket approximately 50 feet off the rear property line and berm that area up to about 13 feet which would be up above any delivery trucks . He felt that with the existing 20 ' oleander hedge and the 13 ' berm, the building would be completely shielded visually and acoustically. Mr. Mahoney noted that the A.R.C. was concerned with the rear wall being flat and possibly reverberating. To address these concerns they have stepped the retaining wall behind the building to where it can be landscaped, introduced a heavy plant mass along the rear of the building which goes a long way to shield all of the trash enclosures as well as the loading areas, and added more oleanders and carob trees to screen the back of the building. The building height has always been limited and currently shows the parapet at 26 ' , but will probably end up at 25 ' maximum. 10 '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 +r. The building also is down below Highway 111 so it is not as obtrusive up at the other end because of the lot slopping down about 10 feet. Effecting the neighbors to the rear and the Deep Canyon Road neighbors they originally had a driveway proposed at the rear which has been removed to keep traffic from circulating down in front of these residences . The second driveway lines up with a commercial driveway across the street. There will be no access in or out back near the residential area. A trellis has also been introduced along the Deep Canyon side of the building. The towers were lowered with the main tower remaining at 46 feet, the secondary towers are at 36 ' with the corner towers being lowered to 32 ' . The parapet on the Deep Canyon side of the building has been broken in three places and pushed back into the building which was a request of the A.R.C. The uses on the property have been restricted, greatly limiting what can go where and their hours of operation. Chairperson Jonathan discussed the nice greenbelt setback on the property to the east, the Embassy � Suites, and further north on Deep Canyon with the ° same situation where the developed properties also have grass, sidewalk, more grass, and then the perimeter wall . He then asked what type of perimeter landscaping is being proposed for the project and whether there would be a greenbelt and sidewalk, etc. Mr. Mahoney indicated that they will be proposing landscaping at a minimum of 15 to 20 feet from the right-of-way. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the greenbelt along the frontage of Embassy Suites has about 30 feet of landscaping from the right-of-way. Mr. Mahoney noted that the landscaping for Embassy Suites is 30 feet from the curb. This proposal shows 25 to 30 feet of landscaping from the curb. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the same type of landscaping from the surrounding properties, i .e. grass, sidewalk, grass, will be duplicated for this project. Mr. Mahoney outlined the mounding/landscaping along Highway 111 . Commissioner Whitlock asked if the meandering sidewalk would continue along Deep Canyon from the corner of Highway 111 . Mr. Mahoney stated that their proposal was to continue this sidewalk down Deep Canyon to tie in with the `` 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 � greenbelt and sidewalk of Hidden Palms . Mr. Mahoney stated that this was correct. Chairperson Jonathan questioned the proposed 8 ' sidewalk and the size allotted for the greenbelt. Mr. Mahoney did not know the exact dimensions as yet, but indicated that the greenbelt would be planted along both Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road. Chairperson Jonathan questioned the 46 ' tower as he thought it was found unacceptable by the A.R.C. Mr. Mahoney noted that the corner towers were the only ones that were unacceptable. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the colors presented were accurate in terms of the color palette to be used. Mr. Mahoney insured the commission that the colors would be very close. Commissioner Campbell asked about the route of delivery trucks . Mr. Mahoney stated that the trucks enter from the main entrance off Highway 111, traveling on the west side of the project to deliver on the north side of the supermarket, and exiting on the east side of the building either onto Highway 111 or Deep Canyon Road in order to � travel east on Highway 111 . Commissioner Whitlock discussed the 15 feet between the parcel that is not owned by the applicant and their property asking if they are proposing anything for that section. Mr. Mahoney indicated that it will be landscaped. Commissioner Whitlock asked if this landscaping was included in any of the conditions . Mr. Diaz noted that the landscaping for this area should be added as a condition if the commission wants to insure this landscaping be installed. Commissioner Whitlock felt that the condition should be added, otherwise the area would remain vacant and just be dirt. Mr. Smith noted that power lines presently run through this area. Commissioner Whitlock then asked where the access would be for that parcel . Mr. Diaz explained the easements for this access . Commissioner Whitlock asked if it would ever be possible to have it also connect with the entry to Embassy Suites . Mr. Diaz felt that this would not be possible. Commissioner Whitlock asked if . parking spaces would be eliminated because of this ° � 12 � __ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 r.. access . Mr. Diaz indicated that parking spaces would not be lost and showed where the access would be located. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. HAROLD HOPP, resident and President of the Homeowners Association of Hidden Palms in Palm Desert, stated that their association wanted to involve all the interested homeowners as much as possible in this project. They set up a special committee of the interested homeowners . Mr. Wayne Barlow, homeowner at Hidden Palms, is here tonight as the spokesman for Hidden Palms . Mr. Hopp' s perception at this point is that it is premature for the commission to act on this proposal stating the example of receiving three additional conditions from the applicant just prior to this meeting. MR. WAYNE BARLOW, resident of Hidden Palms in Palm Desert, read a letter outlining the comments from � the special committee of homeowners as well as a group that included residents along Deep Canyon Road, attached hereto and made a part hereof as "Exhibit A" . MR. CARL MILLER, resident of Hidden Palms in Palm Desert, expressed his concerns with using an R2 zoned parcel for a supermarket. This property has been discussed over a period of 8 to 10 years with several different plans . He asked that if the commission grants the zone change, and their proposal does not materialize, will the new zone remain on the vacant property. Chairperson Jonathan answered that this was correct. Mr. Miller felt this was an issue that was a problem that has not been addressed. Mr. Miller added that the applicant asked to hold a meeting on 5unday, February 18th. He called the developer to confirm the Sunday meeting. The meeting never materialized. Mr. Miller felt that the developer was not addressing the homeowners concerns before going before the commission. He stated that there has only been one meeting between the homeowners and the developers, and would be very disappointed �" 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 if the commission granted approval at this point. � MS. JOYCE FRISCO, property owner at Hidden Palms in Palm Desert, stated that her property is located on Monico Circle which backs up right to the location of the proposed supermarket. She agreed with the comments made by earlier homeowners . She recalled that last year when Albertsons was proposed for this parcel, the city council did direct the developer to work with property owners at Hidden Palms and other surrounding property owners . She indicated that she felt the city should have contacted the homeowners at Hidden Palms when the Albertsons project did not materialize and keep them informed of the status of that site. She informed the commission that the developer contacted the homeowners for the first time in January of this year. At that time she felt the proposal looked just like what was approved previously. Ms . Frisco would like to sell her property but feels that it would be very difficult to sell it not knowing what will be built there. In one respect she would like to see something constructive done but she feels the homeowners were � not informed in a timely manner with specific details they had asked for. The committee met on February 17th, prior to the requested meeting by the developer on February 18th, and there was no way the committee members could get back together in sufficient time and without the opportunity to see the revised proposed plans. She indicated that they were not informed as a committee, after asking that all correspondence be sent to the list of the homeowners on this committee. This was not done. The only notification received was the actual legal notice sent by the City of Palm Desert. She expressed the committee 's concern with the public hearing before the planning commission to consider the rezoning of this property without the developer notifying the committee of this proposal . She did not feel the conditions received by the developer today were detailed enough to ensure that they are enforceable. She asked that the commission not make a decision tonight based on the information received because she feels the committee has not been given the proper amount of time to work with the developer to work out the details . Ms . Frisco � 14 �' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 �..r felt that the committee has not been treated fairly and honestly. MR. DENNIS GODECKE, resident of Indian Wells and owner of property immediately across Deep Canyon from the proposed development, informed the commission that he virtually lives at his office this time of the year being a C.P.A. He became aware of the project when he received the legal notice from the city on the public hearing. He immediately contacted Mr. Smith and had a meeting with him. He also spoke to Joe Gaugush by phone regarding the traffic. Mr. Godecke had the opportunity to meet with Tim Bartlett and Dick Baxley who represents the developer and have had at least four meetings with them over the last couple of weeks . He had several concerns, largely about what was going to go on the pads, not being as concerned with the supermarket. Mr. Godecke asked the developer, through Mr. Bartlett, for three things . One was assurance that there would not be a car wash on the site and they have agreed to that. He also asked that there not be a liquor '` store, as there already is a liquor store directly across Deep Canyon and felt that another one was not necessary. The third concern was that there not be a late night type of restaurant immediately across Deep Canyon from my office building. He felt that it would be acceptable to have a restaurant on the furthest pad closest to the corner at Highway 111 . If a restaurant was to be placed on this one pad, it was agreed that it would be under 4,000 square feet. This would limit it enough to the types of restaurants that would be acceptable in that location. Mr. Godecke also had some concerns about traffic and has had conversations with Mr. Gaugush regarding the "pork chop" that is placed in the street. He feels that when he drives around Palm Desert, he is always amazed when he exits different developments that he can not go the direction he wants, i .e. making a Ieft turn or making a right turn. He hoped that this "pork chop" be made a future condition, and not do it right away before seeing how the traffic flow goes there. If it is needed, fine; but he would hate to see it go in right away just because we are anticipating a problem. He felt there could �... 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 be different ways to solve the traffic problem � because the "pork chop" will be right across the street from the main en�rance to his office building. Mr. Godecke felt that when he first came into this process he felt that the homeowners at Hidden Palms had a leg up on the property owners on the west side of Deep Canyon because they already had a list of conditions applying to them. Mr. Godecke indicated that in his meetings with the agent' s representative, he felt that they have been very responsive and addressed his concerns fairly directly and fairly quickly. MR. RICHARD STINEKEY had one concern that he would like to have confirmed and that is that there be a right of ingress and egress to his well site. Mr. Smith noted that this was listed as a condition. Chairperson Jonathan gave the applicant another opportunity to address the commission. MR. RICHARD FRANDSEN was opposed to what Mr. Barlow expressed regarding the developer not being cooperative. There was a meeting on January 13, � 1995 and on February 1, 1995 a letter was sent to all the attendees of the meeting, as well as all the members listed on the committee, included their list of 20 conditions which he felt mitigated all of their concerns . He requested that the homeowners meet with them on February 19th because the developer was going to the A.R.C. as soon as they could thereafter. He stated that he has had no communication, verbal or written, from the committee since his letter of February 1, 1995. He felt that he could not have a meeting with people if they do not respond to your requests . The committee has had the plans and conditions since February lst and the developer has never received anything concrete from the committee other than we are not doing what they want us to do. Mr. Frandsen felt that the 21 conditions agreed upon certainly shows cooperation, and he can not do more than that. He stated that if the committee can not meet with the developer and tell them what they want verbally and in writing, they can not second guess what the committee wants . He did not think that his organization has been acting in bad faith, � s 16 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 `r.. but can't sit around forever and wait for responses to their letter. Mr. Frandsen felt that because they have had no responses for over a month, he assumed that the homeowners committee had no concerns and that it why he is proceeding. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he did not understand the concern about lack of detail, because he felt that the conditions and drawings that the developer volunteered are very specific. However, at the same time, when there is an application for a change in the general plan, and a change of zoning, and existing neighbors that have one set of expectations and somebody comes along and asks for a change, I am very sensitive to that. He asked that if the commission were to give the neighbors one more opportunity to communicate any specific concerns that they might have, and continue this matter for two weeks, would this be something that would cause any problem. MR. FRANDSEN felt that this was something he could live with but did not know if the committee would respond as they have already had a month to � respond. He added that this project is an ongoing changing process, not something that will stay the same day after day. There were some changes in the plan to address Mr. Godecke' s concerns as well as changes due to concerns of the A.R.C. Mr. Frandsen noted that revised plans are sent to the committee whenever changes are made. He did not feel it was acceptable to have to wait another month while the committee reviews three minor changes . Mr. Frandsen again stated that he was not sure what the committee wanted. Chairperson Jonathan offered to have the city work as a facilitator and perhaps schedule a meeting. If that were to happen, the commission would ask that an objective report stating that there was a meeting and outline the specific concerns . MR. FRANDSEN was perfectly willing to do this . Chairperson Jonathan closed the public testimony and asked the commission for comments . � 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 8 � Commissioner Whitlock stated that she is seeing a communication problem, as the developer has come up with some pretty specific conditions, i .e. berming, various additional landscaping, etc. She was in favor of having the continuance to allow the developer and the residents of Hidden Palms to be better informed so that we can make a more informed decision in two weeks . Commissioner Whitlock would like to see the city actually get involved in setting up a meeting so that we know that an effort has been made to bring the two parties together and not rely upon the individuals of Hidden Palms, the developer, and the realtor to put it together. She felt that the meeting needs to be more formalized and apologized for placing this in Mr. Diaz ' s lap. She reiterated that this is a very important corner for the City of Palm Desert. It is important to the city, and is important that the commission makes sure that they address as many concerns as they can. She remembers what Hidden Palms went through in 1986 with the previously approved project, and she does not want to go through that again. Commissioner Whitlock would like to see the residents of Hidden Palms and the new occupants of the buildings on Deep Canyon be satisfied. It is a crucial corner. She felt that the ; t lighting and the noise elements that Hidden Palms have � addressed this evening are important to all of us . Commissioner Whitlock added that she would like to see a more detailed landscape plan as well as it fronts Highway 111 and Deep Canyon. She noted that there seems to be an emphasis on the landscaping for the area between the market and the perimeter wa11 of Hidden Palms, and felt there should be an equal amount of concern on the landscaping along Highway 111 to show how the parking lot would be screened, how the three pads would be screened, etc. Commissioner Whitlock would like to see the city staff try to organize a meeting between the two parties and have that resolution before the commission in two weeks. Commissioner Beaty concurred and sees a willingness of the developer to attempt progress, but has not seen any sign from the residents of Hidden Palms if they are interested in participating in this meeting or not. He asked if their representatives would care to comment. Mr. Hopp felt that the comments made that the residents are not interested in is not true. Commissioner Beaty asked if the residents were willing to meet with the developer. Mr. Hopp stated that they absolutely would be 3 � 18 'r■� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 �r.. willing to meet. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Beaty accepted the responsibility of Mr. Hopp speaking, and thanked him for his response to the meeting. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that the meeting is continued and the public hearing will be reopened at the next meeting. He added that he concurred with Commissioner Whitlock and would like to see a more detailed landscape plan noting his concerns with the perimeter as well as the shielding of the pads . Chairperson Jonathan wanted the applicant to know that he was very concerned, and has serious reservations with the 46 ' tower noting that 46 feet is nearly 5 stories and there was nothing that comes close to this height in this vicinity. He feels that the applicant has gone a long way with some very specific conditions of approval to mitigate some of the possible problems as a result of this development. By asking the two parties to meet, he is not intending to send a message that the neighbors should come in with a long list of requests in addition to what the applicant has listed. His expectation would be that if there are remaining problems that the +�•� neighbors feel have not been adequately mitigated, that the neighbors be very specific about what those concerns are, seek out a compromise or solution, and see if we can get this thing going to everyone's satisfaction. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, continuing Case Nos . GPA 94-2, C/Z 94-3, and PP 94-7 to the meeting of March 21, 1995 . Carried 5-0 . Mr. Diaz stated that he would like to see a copy of the plans with actual marking up showing exactly what the concerns are and what they would like to see from the property owners and representatives of Hidden Palms. This way specific items can be discussed at this meeting. Mr. Diaz proposed that the meeting be scheduled for Friday, March 17th at 3 :30 p.m. in the Community Services Conference Room here at city hall . Mr. Barlow stated that he and Mr. Frandsen believe that they can discuss the issues of concern without disturbing Mr. Diaz ' s schedule. They indicated that they would be meeting, if not this week, than next week. � 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 i �■i Mr. Frandsen agreed that Mr. Diaz did not need to get involved in this meeting and felt that the problems can be settled within the next two weeks . He stated that he did appreciate the offer. Chairman Jonathan replied that it was refreshing to be privileged to such mature behavior. VIII . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. IX. MISCELLANEOUS: A. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT FOR THE WHITEHAWK HOMES SUBDIVISION: LATISHA LANE (NORTH OF DELAWARE) AND LATISHA LANE (BETWEEN ROBIN LANE AND MOUNTAIN VIEW) . Mr. Joe Gaugush outlined the report regarding three separate street abandonment requests . The government code Section 65 .402 requires that the commission advise the city council of the proposed right-of-ways conformity with the city' s general plan. Staff is requesting, by minute motion, that the commission so advise the city � council . Commissioner Whitlock is familiar with the development and felt the proposed abandonments were very appropriate. Chairperson Jonathan confirmed that maintenance is given to the appropriate associations. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, by minute motion, determining that the subject right-of-way vacations are in conformity with the city' s General Plan. Carried 5-0. X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE Chairperson Jonathan attended this afternoon's session and reported that there was one item before the E.D.A.C. which will impact the planning commission at sometime in the future. This was a potential arrangement with U.S . Filter Corporation for expansion of their facility and actually a move of their facility. E.D.A.C. discussed the merits of the proposed agreement and voted to recommend to city council to pursue the agreement with x ; � 20 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1995 �. • U.S. Filter Corporation. Mr. Diaz added that he, as the Director of community development, is now an ex-officio member rather than the administrative secretary to that board. At this point the Director of the Redevelopment Agency will be the administrative secretary, and that agency will administer the E .D.A.C. board. Commissioner Whitlock thought this was in direct conflict with what E.D.A.C. was asking for. Mr. Diaz noted that he will still be participating, but not administrating. Chairperson Jonathan felt that the proposal from U.S. Filter Corporation would be a very exciting development for the City of Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley. U.S . Filter Corporation is a very large publicly traded corporation that would eventually bring 500 employees to the valley. The proposed site is adjacent to the Cal State University campus near the Cook Street interchange, along the I-10 corridor. They are an international company, and their corporate headquarters located here in Palm Desert. XI . COMMENTS Mr. Diaz distributed copies from the city attorrtey' s � office of the local guidelines for C.E.Q.A. that reflect � the changes in state law as well as court decisions . Mr. Rudolph noted that the city council has not yet adopted the resolution to formally to make these the cities guidelines . These are proposed guidelines at this point. XII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adjourning the meeting to March 21, 1995 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjou ed at 8 :45 p.m. � F✓� ' , . RAMON A. DIAZ, Sec ary ATTEST: SABBY JON HAN, Chairperson Palm Dese Planning Commission /db �"" 21 "EXHIBIT A" WAYNE E. BARLOW ������E� 2029 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUI7E 3230 LOS ANCELES. CnLIFORNIA 90067-3018 t�.H}� 1 �� 1995 (310) 277-7556 FAX (310) 277-2982 coaaruNm�vc�orrExr oerun�rt � cm or r,�uw oamr March 7, 1995 HAND DELIVERED City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention: Palm Desert Planning Commission Re: Proposed development at NE corner of Hwy 111 and Deep Canyon; Case Nos. : GPA 94-2 , C/Z 94-3 , PP 94-7 Gentlemen: For more than the past 10 years the residents of Hidden Palms and surrounding interested property owners have consistently expressed their concern regarding any proposed development on this site in terms of the following criteria: `"� Lighting, Noise, Refuse/Rodents, Visual/View and Traffic. The concerns of surrounding property owners have been consistent and expressed with respect to each proposed development. In the past the city has properly insisted that these concerns be addressed appropriately. The fundamental incompatibility of placing a loading dock, truck driveway, trash compactor, garbage dumpster and its attendant rodents and odors, a structure ::�r_i�r. te�•rers above the n�arby r�sidenc�s and nu��r�us sou:.3 producing equipment within some 95 feet of an established residential neighborhood is obvious to all property owners, the developers and up to this point in time, the City of Palm Desert. That is surely the reason that the city planners zoned the parcel in questior as Planned Residential. Clearly, this zoning was intended as a buffer and transition. You are acutely aware that the residential charac- ter of Hidden Palms has not changed and the property owners in Hidden Palms and the surrounding owners have substantial investments in their homes. The proposed development information provided us �, and presently before the Planning Commission now provides an artist's rendering of the elevations and overhead site plan WAYNE E. BARLOW Palm Desert Planning Commission March 7, 1995 Page 2 •.. only — leaving all to guess as to the details and to rely on the vague oral representations of the developers' agents without having a sufficient degree of specificity so that if the oral representations are not fulfilled a reasonable person can demonstrate that fact. The simple fact is that the city intended this parcel to be residential and thus compatible with the existing adjoining uses. All of us at Hidden Palms and many surrounding owners purchased i:� reliance �.-� tiiis state aP zoning. The simple fact is that the present owners are seeking to sell this parcel for a large profit for a use not presently allowed and thus maximize their financial gain at the expense of the surrounding property owners. When the owners and developers leave the area with their gains they will leave Hidden Palms and others behind to deal with all of the concerns regarding the proposed development. That is manifestly unfair. The proposed developers have made a superficial appearance of addressing the concerns of Hidden Palms owners without providing any substance. In fact, the plans and ` language provided do not allow one to determine the details of the proposed development with sufficient specificity to later determine if conditions agreed to have, in fact, been fulfilled. This is true of all of the subjects which are of concern to us in Hidden Palms including: Lighting, Noise, Refuse/Rodents, Visual/View and Traffic. In addition, the developers continue to refuse to identify the proposed tenants so that property owners can exercise their own independent judgment on the viability af the proposed use. This presents a maj or breach of prior assurances given by the developer at a rEc�nt �:seting �oxt Jar.u�ry 13 , 1335) k�t:: property owners. All of this is not to say that there are not glimmers, however faint, of useful information and passible accommodation. There do appear, however, to be the begin- nings of some protections, at least for Hidden Palms. These appear to be: apparent willingness to address the issue of hours of use, apparent willingness to address the actual use of various portions of the property, apparent willingness to address noise, apparent willingness to address the issue of lighting, apparent willingness to address the question of refuse and rodents, apparent willingness to address the question of visual/view, apparent willingness to address the � question of traffic and apparent willingness to address including restrictions in deeds thus allowing any interested WAYN E E. BARLOW Palm Desert Planning Commission March 7, 1995 Page 3 � property owner to seek court enforcement without city intervention. I use the word "apparent" in each case to emphasize that while the issues are addressed in extremely fuzzy fashion, there is not sufficient specificity to determine compliance and violation. This is emphasized by the conspicuous absence of the proposed tenant, who because of its absence, makes no assurances and agrees to nothinct. This is simply unacceptable to Hidden Palms owners. It should be equally unacceptable to this city. Obvious ways of addressing some issues raised include roofing and enclosing the entire loading, staging and other offensive areas as has been done by markets in northern California and reconfiguring the roof to create an acoustic barrier behind which noise producing equipment can be set. However, the opportunity to so is not provided since detailed plans and specifications are kept from us and instead the matter is rushed to this hearing. Only yesterday I was informed by Mr. Hal Hopp, president of the Hidden Palms Homeowners Association, that the broker had informed him that the broker was in possession �"'� of yet a newer, more recent and more detailed set of plans and specifications. Mr. Hopp informed him that as soon as a set of these new and different plans and specifications could be supplied to the homeowners we will comment on them. You should require that the developers and their agents and representatives fully inform us of their plans and then ' provide a period for review, consideration and comment before further changes are made. That is the onZy fair way to get informed comment without the developer constantly moving the target. Certainly if these developers are sincere and truly intend to follow through on their earlier assurances given and instructions from the city council, they should find no problem in providing the specifications and plans of their proposed development with sufficient detail and with suffi- cient time that a reader can indeed determine their compli- ance or noncompliance. This they have earlier promised to do and this they now clearly have failed to do. The only fair assumption when one makes a point of promising to do some- thing and then so obviously fails to do it is that the failure is willing and knowing. That too is unacceptable and should not be validated by this body. � The surrounding owners have extended themselves in good faith to meet with the developer and have carefuI.ly WAYNE E. BARLOW Palm Desert Planning Commission March 7, 1995 Page 4 � noted his assurances made personally to the gathered group. The later communications, however, come i— not from the person originally making them—but from another person. And, the writings do not even superficially agree with the oral representations. Again, this change is obvious to us and we must assume it is conscious on the part of the developers. Why, one asks, is the developer so reluctant to confront the surrounding property owners with sufficient specificity so that t:zey can carefully judge the impact that this request for a zone change and development approval will have on our long enjoyed use of our property? Your guess is as good as mine, however, my concern, and the one that the developer prevents me from validating, is that the use proposed will have profound and detrimental impact on my present use and that of my neighbors inside and outside Hidden Palms. That is not acceptable. The City Council, on January 13, 1994, instructed this developer (through the real estate broker) that it meet with and address the concerns of concerned area property �, owners. There was then a meeting with the developer on January 13, 1995 at which time certain representations were made. To date, the follow through on those representations has been unacceptable and inconsistent with the representa- tions made. With that said, one can only speculate at the motives of the developers for asking that the matter be now set for this public hearing before ever fully addressing the concerns expressed by property owners and fulfilling the promises and assurances made to those property owners and agre�ing to d� so befoxe setting the ma+.:ter for a public hearing. This rush to public hearing without first sharing the promised and agreed details of the proposed development and zone change also prevents the full, fair exchange of ideas between developer and concerned property owners. Because the developer has chosen to rush to this public hearing without first sharing details of the proposed development with sufficient particularity to allow concerned owners to comment and offer suggestions, it can only be assumed that the developers wish to preclude that informed, careful consideration, comment and cooperation. That is precisely what the city council advised against on �.. January 13, 1994 and that is precisely what the developer has chosen to do once again. WAYNE E. BARLOW Palm Desert Planning Commission March 7, 1995 Page 5 +�.. At such time as the proposed development can be set forth with sufficient particularity � so that interested persons may make an intelligent and informed assessment of impact, we will be happy to do so. Until that occurs, we should not be put in a position of guessing at the developers' intentions or relying on its vague expressions nor should the city force us or expect us to do so. Under the circumstances it is obvious that the city is likewise unable to make �.n informed and intelligent assessment of the impact of the proposed deveiopmeiit and zon� change without the same specificity requested by the interested property owners. We certainly hope and expect that you will assist us in Hidden Palms to preserve the integrity of our community by requiring the proposed zone change and development share its intentions with us in sufficient detail and with suffi- cient time to comment based on information rather than ignorance. . � Very truly yours, /�/t- � Way e E. Barlow WEB:gm WEB001:L147 . 03/07/95 10:32 �