Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0321 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - MARCH 21, 1995 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 Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sonia Campbell George Fernandez Members Absent: Carol Whitlock Staff Present: Ray Diaz Steve Smith Marshall Rudolph Tonya Monroe Dick Folkers IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: � Consideration of the March 7 , 1995 meeting minutes . � Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the March 7 , 1995 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent March 9, 1995 city council actions . VI . CONSENT CALENDAR None. VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued 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- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1995 2 ) , a Precise Plan of Design, and a � Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto, 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 . Commissioner Fernandez informed commission that he would be abstaining from the discussion because he was a store manager and it would be the best for Von' s if he abstained. Chairperson Jonathan stated that the record would show that Commissioner Fernandez would be abstaining from all discussion and any votes on this matter. Mr. Smith noted that this matter was continued from two weeks ago. At that time the applicant and Hidden Palms homeowners to the north wished to have the opportunity to meet to see if they could work out concerns . He understood that there had been at least two meetings . He said the parties could speak for themselves . He also indicated that a fax was received from Mr. Barlow dated March 20 that was distributed to commission. As well, in the packet the commission received a letter from Mr. and Mrs . Frisco. Tonight the commission received an update from the public works department amending � their condition #13 . Mr. Smith reported that the revised elevations and landscaping were before the architectural review commission last Tuesday--the landscape plan was deemed acceptable. The elevations needed further explanation from the architect, who was not able to be present at that meeting. Relative to the tower elements, the applicant looked at several alternatives as shown on the display boards . He felt that Mr. Mahoney would provide details . The landscape plan presented to the architectural review commission, specifically regarding the perimeter treatment on Deep Canyon and Hiqhway 111, was acceptable and was granted preliminary approval . Mr. Diaz stated it was his understanding that there was an agreement reached between the residents and the developer. He recommended that the commission proceed with the public hearing and ask the developer and the representative of the adjoining residences to speak as to whether an agreement on these conditions could be reached. If both parties agreed with the conditions, the city attorney advised that there would not be a problem with implementing these provided there was agreement by both parties . � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1995 rr.. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff had reviewed the proposed Barlow letter conditions and determined that none were in conflict with the other conditions and restrictions previously presented. Mr. Smith expressed concern that condition #4 in the letter provided for lighting of the palm trees, while condition #14 appeared to be at odds with condition #4 with the lighting to be directed at the ground only. He had assumed that in condition #4 the lights would be upward shining. He felt some clarification was needed. Mr. Diaz said that on condition #4 it could be indicated that in the event that there was a conflict with item #14 on this letter, that if approved by the city council, item #4 would be the controlling condition. He explained that with regard to palm tree lighting, there was still some controversy. The bottom line was the enforcement of that condition was with city council . Chairperson Jonathan recommended hearing from the applicant because if there were lights installed on the ground that had to f lash on the ground, it didn' t make sense. Chairperson Jonathan asked if any other items in the March 20 letter were in conflict with the proposed conditions of approval : setbacks, height limitations and delivery times . Mr. Diaz said that if any of the conditions were in conflict with existing ordinances and were more restrictive and the applicant agreed to them, they could be implemented. � Chairperson Jonathan noted that the hours of operation were discretionary; Mr. Diaz concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked staff to review the terms of conditions to insure that they wouldn' t run into problems in the future. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICHARD FRANDSEN, an Indian Wells resident, stated that after two lengthy conference calls and a meeting Saturday, the conditions before the commission were acceptable to them. He felt that 46 lights for palm trees was excessive when everyone was concerned about too much light around the area. He suggested that something less than 46 be given some consideration. Also, he asked for clarification as to what a "fast food" restaurant was--the ordinance did not allow drive- thru restaurants and they knew that and accepted that. If a 4,000 square foot restaurant wanted to locate into the center, they would like to have the right to put them on the first two pads . Otherwise, all the conditions were acceptable. ""' 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1995 MR. MIKE MAHONEY, a Laguna Beach resident, said that �rri regarding the issue of the lighting, they were talking about two different things . One was decorative lighting which the neighbors would like to accent/light the palms trees and the other lighting issue was the parking lot lights . He noted that there were two drawings on display that they had worked on with the neighbors and which explained what they were talking about. He said that one concern of the neighbors from the outset was their right to privacy, noise pollution, vermin pollution and air pollution. He felt that having the berm at 13 feet and saving the palm trees as a date grove as a concept throughout the whole center would be adequate. After numerous discussions, Mr. Barlow had a picture of a receiving envelope that he had seen in San Francisco that would completely encapsulate the receiving function that would keep any noise pollution that happened to escape ( i .e. the incidental door slam, people speaking, knocking on the doors to get in, etc. ) that type of nuisance would be completely eliminated because all of the functions would happen within the receiving canopy. He described it as a large enclosure where trucks would drive through then back up to the door. He f elt that with the ma j or trucks there wouldn't ; be a problem except if they left the radio or engine on � too long. Mr. Barlow' s and the neighbors concerns were with the smaller vendors and to have their activities and noise controlled more. The enclosure became an ideal method for removing that problem. They were proposing an enclosure across the back of the store 50 feet wide and they would have a slab in the middle where they would take in the majority of their small vendors that did not deliver across the front sidewalk. A lot of the small vendors came into the front door. Produce would use the rear door. That congestion would be eliminated and the residents would not be annoyed by the blasting of radios . The other concern was the probable location of equipment. They did a roof plan with a grocery store like the proposal showing where the air intakes, skylights, and all equipment might be located. Basically only an exhaust fan and air conditioning equipment were located on the roof. This was to insure that the residents would not be able to see or hear noise from the equipment. The mound and landscaping treatment isolated the building and the mound came around the end of the building where there were no doors . In the front there was a 27 foot light pole and if the lights were all held in front of the building 4 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1995 �.. line they would be completely screened by the development behind them and would not be a nuisance. They were talking about two kinds of lighting: the accent lighting for the palm trees, and they would develop palms along Deep Canyon like Hidden Palms to get a colonnade of date palms all the way down with the sidewalks, that was condition #4 . Condition #14 was that the residents did not want to see the low pressure sodium parking lot lights . He understood that the city had an ordinance that they would have to comply with and in cooperation with the homeowners he felt they could arrive at an acceptable parking lot lighting plan. He said that with regard to the main tower element, it was 46 feet high and there was a 10 foot differential between the grade and Highway 111 . He clarified that the tower element at Embassy Suites was 58 feet and theirs would be 46 feet and approximately 10 feet below street grade. Mr. Diaz felt that the commission might wish to have the applicant address restriction #6 because it contained blank spaces . Mr. Mahoney said that the way they would address this � was they would have to go out and acoustically measure noise at the property line. They were working on them. Mr. Diaz suggested that the condition be worded similar to the lighting condition that the end result, after everything was constructed, was that the sound levels at the property line of Hidden Palms would be lower than they were before the project was built. Mr. Mahoney felt that Mr. Diaz ' s wording was correct and they would probably better the situation with the berm by itself, and with the berm, store and enclosure, they would better the situation more. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that restriction #4 where each palm was to be illuminated, they could say that each palm m� be illuminated. Mr. Mahoney said that he wasn't sure the city would accept one light per palm with the lighting ordinance. They would provide as many as the city would accept. Chairperson Jonathan said that restriction #6 would be re-worded to say that whatever sound level exists would not be exceeded after construction. For restriction #14 the words could be added at the end to say "with exception of the palm trees referenced in restriction #4" . As far as �' S MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1995 clarification for fast food, the condition could say rt "pursuant to current ordinance" . Mr. Mahoney confirmed that would be acceptable. Commissioner Beaty noted that in the event that a restaurant came in some day, restriction #11 would not allow liquor sales . He suggested inserting the word "package" . Mr. Mahoney concurred and noted that the intent was not to have a liquor store. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. HAROLD HOPP, a resident of Palm Desert, stated that they had a few conference calls and meetings between Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Barlow. They had a meeting on Saturday where a number of their committee members and homeowners were able to meet with the developers and listen to what they proposed. Although there was not a 100� consensus, he felt they were close and these developers were much more cooperative and interested in working something out than they had seen before and the conditions, if adopted, would go a long way toward making the project one that they could live with and some members of the � association would be happy to have. There were some � concerns that the developers were not able to address . Those mainly involved a couple of areas such as what would happen to the intersection of Deep Canyon and Highway 111 with the frontage road. He understood from Mr. Gaugush that the city would soon be requesting bids for design to close off the frontage road so that it could not be accessed from Deep Canyon. He felt that would be helpful . The proposed development, when the road was widened, would put in a median so that left turns would be prohibited from northbound Deep Canyon onto the frontage road. Also, the undergrounding was almost complete and the poles in that section of Deep Canyon would be taken down within the next couple of months . All of those things went a long way in alleviating his concerns about the effects of this development. Another concern was the amount of traffic on Deep Canyon. He heard an estimate of 5700 trips per day that would be generated by this development. He was not sure that meant on Deep Canyon or overall, but a number of the homeowners were concerned about that. Right now it was not always easy to make a left turn out of Hidden Palms to southbound Deep Canyon and additional traffic would only make it more difficult. As a result, '' 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1995 `.. there was not a consensus among the homeowners about whether this was a good project and whether the change of zone and general plan amendment should be approved. There were some that felt strongly that this was not something that should be approved--that the original zoning and general plan should remain the way it is . His personal opinion was that with these conditions and with the street improvements, it was a good project and the general plan and zone change should be approved. He asked if the planning commission approved a general plan amendment and zone change, what would happen if this project did not go forward--what was the zoning in that event. Chairperson Jonathan replied that once a zone change was done, that was what the property was zoned for, subject to any subsequent changes . Mr. Diaz noted that the zoning would stay with the property, but if this project did not proceed there would be another hearing on the design of the next project. The conditions were on the precise plan, which was what would be before the commission for a future project. Commissioner Beaty asked if a zone change could be conditioned or attached for this particular project and if rr.► this project didn' t proceed, the zone change would revert back. Mr. Diaz replied no. � MR. WAYNE BARLOW, a resident of Los Angeles, stated that the topic being discussed now was in general the most important to the Hidden Palms homeowners . He said it was important for them to know that the conditions that create an envelope to maximize the protection for Hidden Palms should be imposed on any future proposed development of the parcel or the zone change. They were a group of small homeowners that weren't equipped to fight this battle over and over again, even though they have for 12-14 years . They have had several conference calls with Mr. Frandsen and Mr. Mahoney and several meetings with the exchange of a great deal of correspondence. The final culmination was what was presented to the commission called restrictions . He noted that the developer had been accommodating in addressing the issues that have been raised by Hidden Palms residents and other interested surrounding property owners . He wanted to make it clear that he did not represent anyone, per se. He was an attorney but he was not present as an attorney and was not present as a representative for anyone, nor had he been a r.. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1995 representative in the discussions with Mr. Frandsen and �1 Mr. Mahoney other than to be a collector of the concerns that various people had expressed. Those issues had been addressed. The issues he raised with Mr. Frandsen and Mr. Mahoney had been addressed very positively. The reason for making the clear distinction that he was not a representative was that there were homeowners present who felt that even with the conditions this should not proceed. The issue of whether this should be approved by planning commission or council was open at this point and the tenants might or might not want the project that way. He did know that what they agreed to do did address the issues raised by some people and he would want to preserve that as a starting point if their development did not go forward. He did not have anything further except to say that the developers were very professional, accommodating and business like. He felt they made great progress and the commission had the evidence of that in the restrictions . This being an ever-changing activity, he did not want to lose the momentum they had gained. Chairperson Jonathan said he was not sure that Mr. Barlow' s desire could be accommodated in this regard. If this application was to move forward into construction, whether it ,,,� was the applicant that put it up or a subsequent purchaser, they would be bound by the restrictions placed on the project tonight then approved by the city council . However, if a different project were to ultimately go onto that site, they did not have a mechanism for placing these restrictions, such as hours of operation, rows of palrri trees, berming, etc. , on any subsequent change in the development of the site. It could be something completely different and it would be impractical to try and anticipate, as well as impossible to place restrictions on a future development; however, the mechanism that allowed neighbors and other interested parties to participate in the process of what went up would continue to exist, and some of them might still be here. Mr. Rudolph concurred with Chairperson Jonathan' s explanation. Mr. Barlow said that the fact remained, and the only person in front of him that would remember this was Mr. Diaz, but when someone first proposed doing something here approximately 14 or 15 years ago, they requested the preservation of the palm trees, and those conditions of development have been communicated, whether by ordinance or development conditions or just oral history, but they had come down from the planning 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1995 ti..► commission and anyone coming in who said they wanted to develop, he knew they had been told that they would have to address certain issues . Mr. Diaz said that had the plan approved 14 years ago been approved, they would not be there today or have to worry about access problems and inter-access problems between the developments and Embassy Suites, but that was then. One reason they could continue right now to recommend and condition the remainder of the date palms was that the nexus that existed 14 years ago to require that exists today. The nexus was a finding that there was a connection between a problem being caused by a project and the condition to eliminate that problem. That continued to exist today. He could not guarantee that it would continue to exist three- five years from now. It was not only that condition, but all the others also. Obviously when anyone came in to apply for a change of zone or a project on this property, staff showed them the records, but there was no way that staff could continue to guarantee that the conditions of approval placed on this project today could be placed on the project in the future, if the nexus requirement was still there. Chairperson Jonathan said that they would not necessarily r... want to bind future homeowners to something they felt was appropriate tonight; if another proposed development came to , the city in ten years, those homeowners might not want date palm trees--the commission has had neighbors ask that trees be taken down because of rat infestation and so forth. What was right today might not be what homeowners want tomorrow. Mr. Barlow understood what the commission could and could not do, but knew the practical effect of Mr. Diaz ' s longevity had been great continuity for anyone going to the city seeking to deal with this . To the extent that could be maintained, that was a benefit for all concerned and for them particularly so they didn't have to constantly re-invent the wheel . They started at a point with intermediate developers that had come along that had assumed conditions to address concerns . If that continued to exist, they would expect it to be continued to be communicated to any developer. Regarding the lighting, any perceived inconsistency between restriction numbers 4 and 14--the one talking about down light was only applied to the parking lot 27 foot pole lights that shined down. v... 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1995 � MS. GERRY LONGORIE, a resident of Indian Wells, stated � that she owned homes at 602 Monaco Circle and 309 Venice Court. She stated that she had attended most of the meetings with the committee with regards to this development and her main objection (she would like to see this defeated and the zoning to remain as it is) was traffic that this project would put onto Deep Canyon. She felt that as close to the high school as they were, with the new catholic school and 211 homeowners driving 422 cars, it was difficult enough to turn out of the main gate at Hidden Palms and it was almost impossible for them to turn out the back gate onto Fred Waring to go left because of the Fred Waring traffic. She said they would be totally locked in and with the new Palm Gate development across from them with their entrances offset, she did not see any future for any stop signal and it would be a terrible disservice to members of their community. She noted there was a street light in front of Embassy Suites to put the eastbound traffic exiting onto Highway 111 there rather than running them down Deep Canyon. She felt there was very little traffic going into Embassy Suites . Chairperson Jonathan noted that traffic was always a concern � as the community grows and he felt that staff had dealt very � well with it because they were also concerned about it. He said this was a large vacant parcel on a major corner--he asked what she saw as potential development for that kind of a parcel that would create less traffic. Ms . Longorie said she was not opposed to the development of a market, but wanted to find a better way to deal with the traffic. Up until tonight, while she had asked for traffic figures from the developers which they had not given her, tonight was the first time she heard 5700 trips per day. She felt that was a lot of traffic on that street. Chairperson Jonathan asked if a traffic study had been done; Mr. Folkers replied that he did not know the status, but for a development of this type with the existing lanes plus the proposed improvements at Deep Canyon and Highway 111, this type of development would not impact traffic in their estimation. Mr. Diaz added that the differences in timing on peak traffic for people going to and from work from the hours of 7 : 30 a.m. to 9 : 30 a.m. and the hours of operation of the center were different, so there wouldn' t be the peak hour traffic conflicts . He noted that as far as having all the 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1995 .r traf f ic going east coming out of the Embassy Suites driveway, he couldn't argue that it would be a tremendous solution and that was the plan before them in 1980-81, but it didn' t get adopted and at this time it could not be implemented. They were always looking at eliminating as many curb cuts as possible. Anyone who wanted to travel to the east would have to make a left turn and one of the things the developer did was eliminate the access furthest north on the project--there was once a driveway there and to accommodate the concerns of the residents on Deep Canyon that was eliminated. There was a left turn that could have been made further from the intersection of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon, which would have made it easier but to accommodate the concerns of the residents in that area, it was moved further south. There was always a trade-off, but the developers and members of city staff wanted to take care of the folks here first and try to accommodate the ones wanting to come in as best they could; he felt the proposed plan did that. MS. JOYCE FRISCO, a Palm Desert resident, expressed concern about traffic. She indicated that she had sent in a letter. The ingress and egress at Hidden Palms and what would be created at Alessandro and Deep Canyon a half block from Highway 111, which would end up being r.. one of the main entrances was a major concern. She couldn't imagine how people would be able to get in and out there. She heard Mr. Folkers say that the impact of this market and eventually other stores or restaurant sites hadn't really been studied, and that was a concern. She asked if there had been a study and was concerned when she heard 5700 trips per day. She asked what was considered the number of trips that Deep Canyon would have to handle with the original zone if main access was on Deep Canyon for a project in there. Mr. Diaz stated that the access from Deep Canyon at Alessandro would be for those individuals coming from the west. Those coming in from the west would be coming in on Highway 111 and if it was local traffic they might come from Alessandro and cross the street there. To exit and go back out, local individuals might go back out Alessandro or they would come out and make a right turn on Highway 111 and go out that area. Folks coming on Highway 111 to the center making a protected left on Deep Canyon and going in on Alessandro all go out the Highway 111 entrance, which was where staff would like them to go and a majority of the shoppers would come from into that center from the west. `�'�" 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1995 � ; � � Ms . Frisco asked if there had been a traffic study done � for the impact of this zone and the proposal . Chairperson Jonathan noted that the negative declaration was saying that there was no problem that could not be mitigated. The traffic that would result from the center was not expected to cause a problem that has not been properly mitigated. Traffic would continue to increase, but the issue was if this center created a problem that was inappropriate or hadn't been adequately dealt with, and the conclusion of staff was no, there were certain restrictions about right- turns and number of ingress/egress points, deceleration lanes, etc. Steps had been taken to mitigate any potential traffic problems and the conclusion was that no remaining traffic exist beyond what is reasonable. Ms . Frisco asked if this was the same type of decision making process that was used when Portola and Alessandro was developed ( i .e. the restaurants) . Chairperson Jonathan noted that each project received a separate review. Ms . Frisco felt that what they were creating was the � same thing but with a lot more traffic because most � everyone avoided taking Alessandro and having to make a left turn out onto Portola. She knew that because as a business owner they were going to locate in a building there, but after studying that street and the potential for accidents, they chose not to consider that piece of property. She personally took that very seriously when it came to real driving and felt they were creating a real problem with that street. Chairperson Jonathan asked what the exact problem was . Ms . Frisco replied the amount of traffic--if they were talking about 5700 trips per day in a 10 hour day, that was 570 trips per hour and traffic was already backed up at that signal . She was being told that a study was not necessary beyond what has already been done and disagreed with that. Mr. Folkers clarified that right now there were two lanes going through there; when it was done, there would be possibly five or six lanes going through on Deep Canyon by Alessandro. The capacity of the street would be greatly increased and it would not be the same situation. 4 � 1� � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1995 � Ms . Frisco asked if people would still be allowed to make a left turn out of the shopping center on Deep Canyon to go to Highway 111 . Mr. Folkers replied yes, that it would be preferable for the folks at Hidden Palms, because if traveling westbound on Highway 111, making a left turn onto Deep Canyon and going into the shopping center and then doing the same in reverse when leaving, it would reduce the amount of traffic further north on Deep Canyon. Ms . Frisco asked if he anticipated a problem for people making a left turn out of the center. Mr. Folkers replied no. Chairperson Jonathan noted that traf f ic was an issue that had been dealt with quite often and he had been on the commission for many years . He had now had residents in the community come to them and object to new development because of the new traffic it caused, but he could remember when the project they were now living in didn't exist. They were also causing the addition to the traffic. At some point Hidden Palms didn't exist and they added to the traffic on Deep Canyon. � Once someone was in the city, they couldn't lock the doors and say no more. His point was that they were not going to , lock the door on that site--something would go in and it would create more demands on traffic. They would not change that. There was also the whole vacant north sphere and they would have more people in the city because it was a desirable area and as business people and consumers they appreciated it. They liked the convenience of having a choice of grocery stores . The real issue was to identify the specific traffic problems that could occur before they occur and to deal with them. He felt the city had good staff that did that, but they needed the help of citizens in terms of identifying specific problems that could be avoided. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Campbell asked about egress from the center onto Highway 111 in an easterly direction. Mr. Smith indicated that the access on Highway 111 was a right-turn in and right- turn out only. It would require an exit from the first access point north of the highway onto Deep Canyon and making a left turn to get into the left turn pocket to proceed east on Highway 111 . H� said that if exiting onto Highway 111, a r"' 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1995 U-turn might be possible at Deep Canyon; however, the W preferred route would be through the Alessandro intersection left and then left at Highway 111 . He also noted that he looked at the restrictions and the only other conflict he noted was in #12 regarding deliveries. Condition #10 allowed deliveries to begin at 6 : 00 a.m. , the new condition would restrict deliveries to begin at 8 : 00 a.m. He noted that the change would be made to the community development department' s condition. Commissioner Beaty asked Mr. Folkers if in the event the traffic concern materialized, if a condition could be attached that there would be a six month review to determine if a stop sign or light was necessary at Alessandro to be studied in the future. Mr. Folkers felt a condition was not necessary because all the developments were monitored and if there was a need to install signs or whatever mitigations needed to be taken, it would be done. Chairperson Jonathan encouraged anyone at any time to contact the city if they had a traffic problem, and if they didn' t have success with the staff, they could address the planning commission under oral communications and/or the city council . ; Commissioner Beaty asked if Commissioner Fernandez could � share his experience as a grocery manager; Commissioner Fernandez explained that since he was a manager he was abstaining and could not participate in the discussion. Commissioner Beaty commended the residents, the committee and the developer on the cooperation that had taken place. He was impressed with the conditions initially and they had gotten even more restrictive. Currently this was an unattractive site that had been empty for a long time. He also liked the proposed maintenance of the date palms . Regarding Mr. Barlow' s comments on attaching future requirements, they couldn't do that but he had opened his eyes into what was feasible and some of the conditions and requirements might carry on to this piece of property if this development did not happen, but it might impact his expectations of future developers and it would be a benefit to the whole city. Commissioner Campbell felt that the berm behind the building and the coverage for the delivery trucks would reduce the noise pollution to a minimal level . Also, she asked if the developer would be able to place larger trees in the parking lot so that it would look like the buildings were there for � � 14 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1995 +�. a longer period of time instead of how the Desert Crossing project looked now and if that would be feasible. Mr. Frandsen noted that it was a matter of money and at some point they would run out. Commissioner Campbell said that other than that, she saw no problem with the project or the traffic. Chairperson Jonathan also commended the homeowners for participating in the development process with an open mind and the developer for listening to their neighbors and he recognized that every condition that was added on meant more money being spent, but they had not let that stop them. He would like to see more of that type of cooperation in Palm Desert. Mr. Diaz noted from a staff standpoint that anytime they could have the people most directly impacted and the developer work out their differences without city assistance it was good. There were other things that needed to be worked out, but there was no doubt that they would be. Commissioner Beaty stated that he would move for approval subject to the amendments . Mr. Diaz stated that for clarification, if it was determined later on that there were rr.. any conflicts between the restrictions in the letter and staff conditions, the restrictions would prevail . Action: 1 . Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1685, recommending approval of GPA 94-2 to city council . Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . 2 . Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1686, recommending approval of C/Z 94-3 to city council . Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . 'Y"" 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1995 3 . Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner �i Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1687, recommending approval of PP 94-7 to city council, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE Mr. Diaz noted that the EDAC had a meeting on March 16, 1995 to consider the proposed Dorothy Hamill "skatatorium" and the � EDAC granted conceptual approval, but if any city or redevelopment assistance was necessary, they wanted to look at the business points of the deal . In terms of the product itself and what it could do for the city, they felt it was very positive. Mr. Diaz noted that staff was processing the U. S. Filter change of zone and that matter would be before the commission in April . XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Beaty asked if anyone attended the Civic Center Steering Committee meeting on March 17 . Mr. Diaz reported that the aquatic center for the YMCA was there and the steering committee through consensus indicated they would recommend in favor of moving forward and doing a study for the aquatic center that would include potential demand, revenue, and how it would be paid for. He noted that the staff report indicated that a maximum of $30, 000 would be needed for the study and the study would be done by someone who had nothing to gain by either recommending the pool be built or not built. They would get paid whether the city � 16 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1995 �r.. liked the recommendation or not and everyone made it clear at the meeting that no one wanted a big pool that no one used. XII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Car ied 4-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 15 p.m. J RAM N A. DIAZ,• S c ry ATTEST: SABBY JONA AN, hairperson Palm Deser Planning Commission /tm �.. `" 17