Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0716 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JULY 16, 1996 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7 :02 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell Jim Ferguson George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Mark Greenwood Marshall Rudolph Tonya Monroe Steve Smith �► IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the July 2, 1996 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the July 2, 1996 minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Ferguson abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent July 11, 1996 city council actions . VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 96-19 - AVONDALE GOLF CLUB, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow adjustment of westerly property line of Lot 60 of Tract No. 4018 to be positioned at the edge of an MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 existing Golf Course Lake for residential use (Lot 4 R.S. ) . B. Case No. PMW 96-23 - ROBERT B. VARNER, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge three lots and create two equal sized lots for Lots 23, 24 and 25 of Tract No. 23940-3 . C. Case No. PMW 96-24 - DENISE P. ROBERGE/THOMAS LOWE, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to combine Lots 1-4, Block T, for property bounded by El Paseo to the north, Portola Avenue to the east, Larrea Street to the south, and Prickly Pear Lane to the west. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. PP/CUP 96-5 - RICK MURO, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use permit for a 17,857 gross square foot two story athletic club on the vacant property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. Mr. Drell handed out additional information from the traffic engineer. Mr. Smith explained that this item was continued from June 18 and July 2 to this evening. He said that since July 2 the project continued to evolve and has improved. The building increased in size to a total of 18,498 square feet. The parking structure was reconfigured to provide a total of 124 parking spaces, which is sufficient to comply with the ordinance. The matter was at architectural review last Tuesday. With a few minor additional changes, they granted preliminary approval . Some of the things they were impressed with was that the applicant had taken the corner of the 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 "r building adjacent to Monterey and Fred Waring and reduced the two story element to just a single story element for a substantial portion for that part of the building. They also had some additional vocabulary added to the front of the building where it is adjacent to Monterey and Fred Waring. The landscape plan indicated that they would have an adequate level of landscape treatment to obscure the parking structure, although with it being four to five feet below grade the overall height would not be that high. It would have an overall height of eight feet to the top of the guardrail . With those improvements and the additional parking, planning staff felt they were in a position that if they could address the concerns from the neighborhood in a reasonable fashion, that they would be in a position to recommend approval . He noted that there were still letters of concerns from Mr. Middleton, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Hein, Diana La Mar and the Reimers . Essentially, the earlier letters of objection still were concerned with pass-through traffic into the residential community, the potential for parking commercial vehicles overflowing into the residential area, and the extended hours of operation having a greater impact on the community. Staff tried to come up with conditions that would mitigate these concerns . The one staff came up with, and it was not the first time staff suggested this, was "r' that the street north of the access driveway on Acacia be closed. It would have a wall and gate system. The gate would be keyed or a touch number pad to give access to the residents north for children going to school or walking along Fred Waring or going to the mall--they could still have that ability. He felt there wouldn' t be any incentive for anyone to park north of the facility in the residential area with the wall . Staff felt that they could address the matter of existing pass-through traffic, the matter of overflow parking, and by putting in the wall that would limit any impacts that might result from the extended hours . From the CEQA review on this matter, staff felt the closure of this street condition was quite significant in that before staff could address the matter of the negative declaration on the project, staff had to be comfortable that they have mitigated all of the impacts . With the conditions staff was suggesting, they could recommend that commission adopt the negative declaration and that commission approve Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 96-5 for the 18,489 square foot two story athletic club. He noted that Sharon Howard of the neighborhood presented a petition to city council last Thursday. Ms. Howard and Ms . La Mar walked the neighborhood and got a significant portion of the neighborhood to support the closure of the streets and they were quite specific in 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 their petition that whether or not this project proceeds they want to see the city close the streets to eliminate pass- through traffic. The city council received the petition last Thursday and referred the matter to the public works department for a report. That would apply specifically to the Adonis and Fairhaven closures in that should the commission proceed and approve the request by Mr. Muro tonight, one of the conditions was that the closure of Acacia be placed on this application. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that in condition no. 15 that Mr. Smith referred to required the applicant to provide a plan to close Acacia Drive and assumed it was up to the applicant to construct the masonry wall and provide gating; he asked about the continuing maintenance of the wall and gate. Mr. Smith stated that in the case of the Downey Savings site, which he was most familiar with, the maintenance falls with Downey and they maintain the landscaping and gates . Commissioner Jonathan asked about the distribution of keys, who did the repairs if the lock was broke, and if those kinds of details would be worked out as part of the plan that would be submitted by the applicant. Mr. Smith stated that in case of the Downey Savings it was all handled through their branch office. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the financial burden would fall on the applicant. Mr. Smith replied yes, but noted that if they were to go with a numbered key pad they wouldn't need the distribution of the keys . Chairperson Beaty asked for clarification as to where the wall would be placed; Mr. Smith explained that the wall would be south of Mr. McDaniel ' s southerly driveway in that Mr. McDaniel owns the property at 72-915 at the corner of Glorianna and Acacia. He has two driveways onto Acacia. About 30 feet north of the property line between him and the Ray-Al development. Commissioner Ferguson noted that in the traffic analysis dated June 25, 1996 prepared by public works, in paragraph 3 of page 1, and he asked Mr. Greenwood about this at the last meeting, the analysis said that basically the average amount of traffic expected on those residential streets rated as "excellent traffic conditions for residential streets" . He hadn't had a chance to go through the new information the commission just received, but his question was if that opinion changed based on public works ' review over the past two weeks, or if the ADT analysis had changed for Acacia. Mr. Greenwood stated that the July 16, 1996 report offered a 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 couple of other alternatives . Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Greenwood would briefly summarize the July 16 report. Mr. Greenwood indicated that they compared the proposed use to a 20,000 square foot general office building and to a 16,000 square foot medical/dental office building that they might expect to be on this site. Basically, staff found that they would expect the proposed athletic club to generate approximately 60 additional trips per day on Acacia as compared to a general office use and approximately 17 additional trips as compared to the medical/dental office use. Staff also tried expanding on the ITE trip generation data for the racquet club to develop a worst reasonable case for traffic generation and by increasing that by 50% they came up with about 650 trips per day on Acacia by both expanding the existing traffic volumes that were several years old and adding to that this additional traffic. They were dealing with an anticipated possible volume of 650 vehicles per day. That still put them, in traffic operational terms, in the "good" or "very good" range. They seldom received complaints or requests on two lane residential streets that have volumes less than 1,000 per day. Between 1,000-3,000 per day it was common to receive occasional/yearly requests for various services . With volumes over 3,000 per day, it was unusual to not receive requests . This was still below the 1,000 vehicle per day threshold by a substantial amount. Commissioner Ferguson noted that in the commission packet there was a membership traffic chart for the Sports Club of Palm Desert. He asked if any comparison was done on these figures . Mr. Smith replied yes, but only in so far as they understand the Sports Club has approximately 1500 members, which is what staff is advised that the facility before commission would have at its optimum level . Commissioner Ferguson noted that it showed about one third of the membership visits on any given day. Mr. Smith felt it was in the 35% range. Commissioner Ferguson asked what the base amount of traffic volume on Acacia was with no project there right now. Mr. Greenwood replied that using the existing count that staff has, which was a real count, there were 300 vehicles per day, but the count was four years old. Staff did a quick analysis comparing other residential streets that the city has a count history on to see if they would expect much growth on a typical residential street and they were not seeing any clear pattern, but to prepare a worst reasonable case they applied a three percent per year growth to that and came up with 337 vehicles per day. Commissioner Ferguson said that even if they took a third of the proposed 1500 %M" 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 S 1 member club and extrapolated the Sports Club data with the increase, they would still be in the "good" range; Mr. Greenwood concurred--they would still be below 1, 000 . Chairperson Beaty noted that the public hearing was still open and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. RICHARD OLIPHANT, 45-500 Navaho Road in Indian Wells, stated that as he listened to all the statistical information it was hard for him to understand why there would be a consideration for closing the street as a result of the approval of this project. He didn't want to stand before commission and take issue with any of the people that live in that area because if they want their streets closed, that was a separate issue. They rightfully took it to the city council and they rightfully discussed this as a separate issue from their building. He didn't see that as a nexus for them. If they want to close Acacia, Adonis and Fairhaven, that was their responsibility. If they wanted to maintain those walls and gates they should form some type of special service district in order to achieve it. He felt it was a very unfair responsibility to place on a building that was having an impact on the traffic that J was in the very good range. He said he has seen marginal buildings in the city where the traffic has been increased as a result of that approval and here they were not making that kind of impact. He didn't understand why they were being focused on to remedy a problem that they were not creating. It was another offsite cost that would be added to a lot of other offsite costs that already, as suggested by Chairman Beaty, they would talk to the city council/redevelopment agency about for some assistance, but it was just another issue that had to be addressed. This was a very expensive project already, particularly with the parking structure, and putting more burden on it didn't make this project any easier to do. He said he didn't want to argue with the people that live on Grapevine or any of the other streets--Arboleda or the rest of them in that area. If they want to be private and have accesses only to the north on Fairhaven and Acacia, they could get out onto Arboleda, although this also discusses closing off Fairhaven at Arboleda. He said he didn't want to get into an argument about that because he didn't feel that was his argument. He thought that discussion should be taken up between the residents and 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 the city council . He felt they have met all the requirements of the city, they meet all the ordinance requirements, they bent over backwards to create something that was extra particular on that corner that was going to be very nice and would be a landmark building and an asset to the community. He said he couldn't understand why a negative declaration couldn' t be issued to them with or without that wall if the traffic stays within the very good range. If they were generating 1500 trips per day, then maybe he would be saying that they should mitigate this and put in the wall, but he was not doing that because that wall was not a necessary part of this project. The concept of them building a wall in a public right-of-way and them assuming the liability and the responsibility for that wall was something that was above and beyond a nexus . He urged the commission to approve the project without the wall or the blocking of the street as an obligation of this project. Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Oliphant had run a cost estimate on the additional incremental cost from a development standpoint to put this wall in and then projected annual maintenance costs . Mr. Oliphant replied no, but he would guess that a wall that size would be around $3,000-$4,000 . He didn't know what requirement the fire department would place either. The fire department is located on Town Center Drive and they respond to this neighborhood from Fred Waring Drive. He doubted if the fire marshal had looked at this plan. He thought they would need some Fred Waring access to this neighborhood. All of those things had to be worked out in order to achieve closing off the community. It could be done, but there would be mitigations involved in that. He didn' t want to get into the middle of that, that was not their issue. Their issue was simply developing this corner and they were not generating a traffic load or creating any other environmental impact that they need to mitigate because they were not over-loading any street or the water system or sewer system or anything else. Commissioner Ferguson stated that the purpose of his question was to determine Mr. Oliphant 's concerns and cost was one of them, liability was another, the issue of ongoing maintenance he had no idea what that would be and assumed that would be another one, and asked if those were his three main concerns . 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 a Mr. Oliphant agreed that those were their primary concerns . If the wall was there it wouldn't impact their project because he felt that almost all of their people would be coming in and off Fred Waring Drive. Also, adjoining their property was a driveway to a public parking lot. He asked if the driveway would be on the north side of the wall or the south side of the wall . That also became an issue because that apartment project driveway uses Arboleda and Acacia and it was right next to their property line. Mr. Drell clarified that it was not a public parking lot, it was associated with a specific apartment project and was dedicated for its use. The closure would be south of the driveway of that parking lot. Mr. Oliphant noted that it would actually open north of the wall . Mr. Drell concurred and said it was because the apartment building was a residential use and it would continue to access onto Acacia and Arboleda where most people go now. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. DAVID F. MIDDLETON, 72-799 Arboleda Drive, indicated that the commission should have a copy of his letter so he would not go over it again. He was concerned about the additional amount of traffic, not only in their residential area but on Fred Waring and Monterey. As noted in his letter, already on the weekends traffic was so heavy that trying to get out of their area and go somewhere else to do something was very difficult. Even adding a few more trips, even if it was in the good- excellent range, from where they live it was tough and would be intolerable. They already have quite a bit of vacant space around there and he was not happy about adding more vacant space at some future time. As far as blocking the streets, he agreed with Mr. Oliphant that it was probably a separate issue. The through traffic was probably not that heavy, although there were a few cars that try to avoid the intersection at Fred Waring and Monterey and do cut through at a high rate of speed ( 30-45 mph) . He felt that problem was already there and they were trying to come up with a way to try and resolve that. Adding this building would add to the problem because there would be more drive-through 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 �... traffic through their residential area. He signed the petition and agreed to block the streets with some reluctance because when they bought there they didn't choose to live in a gated community. He didn't like gated communities . He felt that blocking the streets was like blocking the streets off and results in an expenditure of time and effort on their part to satisfy other people's agenda. There would be concerns about police and fire response, visitors trying to get in and out, repairmen, gardeners and activity like that. He stated that he would really like to see this project located somewhere else. Commissioner Ferguson noted that Mr. Middleton said in his letter that his two biggest concerns were traffic and a lack of necessity for another building in the area. He said that assuming that the gym was put there, he asked if Mr. Middleton would prefer it to be there with or without a wall . Mr. Middleton said that if the gym was built, he would very reluctantly prefer the walls . Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Middleton concurred that a wall would help mitigate traffic if the gym was going to be there; Mr. Middleton concurred. Mr. Oliphant readdressed the commission and asked public works staff that if a condition was included to put that wall up as proposed, if there was a necessity for a right-turn lane all the length of their property down Fred Waring Drive to necessitate right turns into Acacia. He said it seemed that they mitigated that, which would be a tremendous expense set aside. Mr. Drell felt that was a good point. Mr. Oliphant asked that if there was no right turn, then why were they widening Fred Waring so wide to make a right turn and if they were going to do that, he asked if they would abandon the street and let them use the area for parking. Mr. Drell said that they would consider that; if it was beneficial for them to utilize a portion of that right-of-way or cooperate with the adjacent property owner to create an entry similar to Sonora and Monterey, that would be perfectly acceptable. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 Mr. Greenwood stated that much of that frontage that is targeted as a right-turn lane was also a bus bay for one of the highest volume bus stop locations in Palm Desert, so even if they didn't do the right-turn lane, there would still be a substantial bus bay across that frontage. Mr. Oliphant felt that the bus bay would not cost them any where near what making that right-turn lane would because they would not have the same conflict with the traffic signals and the storm drains . Mr. Greenwood felt that change was something that they should re-evaluate. Commissioner Ferguson asked what the cost would be for putting in the right-turn lane along the property; Mr. Muro spoke up from the audience and said $191, 000 . Mr. Oliphant said he didn't have a cost breakdown, but it was more than a wall . Commissioner Ferguson asked for a ballpark figure, plus or minus $10,000 . Mr. Oliphant stated that he sent Mr. Drell a line item breakdown, so it would be there someplace, he couldn't remember. Mr. Oliphant said that right now they were making a right-turn lane on Monterey and a right-turn lane for the whole length of the property on Fred Waring. By doing that, that necessitated their turning sharply which goo takes out the traffic signals, storm catch basins, and generates a big majority of the costs . Commissioner Ferguson noted that Mr. Oliphant said that a bus bay would be significantly less expensive then a right-turn lane. Mr. Oliphant said that they would be just making a turn-in/turn-out. Commissioner Ferguson asked how much less expensive that would be; Mr. Oliphant said he didn't know because he didn' t know what length it would be. Commissioner Ferguson asked if it would be more than the cost of the wall; Mr. Oliphant replied that the turn-in would be more than the cost of the wall . Commissioner Ferguson asked if the savings going from a right-turn lane to a bus lane would be more then the cost of the wall; Mr. Oliphant said that it would be a greater savings then the cost of a wall . Commissioner Ferguson asked if either of those alternatives would be acceptable to him in lieu of the wall . If the commission asked Mr. Oliphant to build the wall, but they gave him relief on the right-turn lane, if it was something he would consider. Mr. Oliphant replied that he would be more apt to consider it. However, one of the big problems he had in considering it was that he didn' t want the on-going liability and responsibility to that wall . He felt it should be a 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 �• dedicated wall to either some special district or to the city. Commissioner Ferguson said that he was just taking a monetary value to it assuming it was a development fee and the city took full responsibility for putting it in there and Mr. Oliphant just supplied the money equivalent to developing the wall . He felt that would be far preferable to Mr. Oliphant then a right-turn lane and putting in a bus bay. Mr. Oliphant felt that would be a more equitable trade-off in his opinion. Mr. Drell noted that he would also be able to pick up some real estate. Mr. Oliphant felt that could be a fairly good trade-off also. Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Drell was passing judgement on that change. Mr. Drell replied no, that was a call for the traffic engineer. Relative to the possible dedication of the remainder of Acacia, obviously if it was dedicated it was no longer public right-of-way and it would become part of this project. Again, that was similar to the buildings built by Mike Homme where the street was closed and the city vacated the street to the property owner and he made a nice entryway far narrower then would be necessary for a street and gained some real estate and it had worked out very well . Ir.r Chairperson Beaty asked for comments by public works . Mr. Greenwood stated that what they could offer was that it was something they could evaluate: the deletion of the right-turn lane from Fred Waring onto Acacia, possible vacation of a portion of Acacia was something worth considering, but it was not something he could give a meaningful recommendation on right now. Mr. Drell stated that the language could be changed to give the public works director the authority to make that call without having to come back to the commission. MR. BILL PERCIVAL, a resident of Acacia, one block from the proposed development, stated that he would like to address a couple of issues that hadn't been brought up as far as the homeowners were concerned. First he wanted to challenge the traffic count in his neighborhood, particularly in the winter time when the Street Fair operates on Saturdays and Sundays . They get thousands of people up and down the streets who park on the street. He didn't feel that had been addressed. If they add to those figures, most of the people in the neighborhood didn't mind the traffic so much, even though the cars park in front of their homes, but they were talking about the snow bird type of traffic which 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 were mostly retired people that were very courteous, they respect their property rights and they were not a nuisance. He said that he raised three children who were now in their 201s . Young people drive differently then the crowd of people they were talking about that frequent their neighborhood on Saturdays and Sundays and go to the Street Fair. He felt the commission would agree with him on that account. He said they were concerned about not only the traffic but the types of people that are generating that type of traffic in their neighborhood. Commission discussed the frequency of travel in their neighborhood as a sports club as opposed to an office building. He noted that an office building normally closed at 4 :30 p.m. or 5: 00 p.m. The sports club would be generating traffic until 9 : 00 p.m. and perhaps later depending on their hours . He felt there was a distinct difference in the time that the neighborhood traffic was being used. The age of the user of their street, the way they drive (and he was not saying that all young people drive poorly) but a high percentage of that age group are being targeting to use the sports club and have the potential of driving much differently then the senior citizens that go to the Street Fair. They lived in a fairly unique part of town. It was an older part of town and was centrally located, but for some reason the lots were very large there and they enjoy a very quiet, serene neighborhood. They are blocked by office buildings around them, which actually blocks out noise from traffic. He felt the people there have come to enjoy that type of neighborhood and quietness and he felt that the man developing this project, and he knew he lived in Indian Wells, Indian Wells was a very quiet, serene type of neighborhood and if he would compare his neighborhood to theirs, he would see that they enjoy a similar quietness and serenity of life that was important to them. Commissioner Ferguson asked Mr. Percival if the project were to be built, if he was in favor of closing the street. Mr. Percival replied yes . Commissioner Ferguson asked what Mr. Percival ' s address was; Mr. Percival stated that he was on the corner of Acacia and Arboleda, 43-795 Acacia. MR. REX MCDANIEL, 72-915 Glorianna, stated that was on the southwest corner of Glorianna and Acacia. He said his east boundary was on Acacia directly across the street from the subject site. He was the only homeowner in direct physical contact with the site. He figured he 12 '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 M.. was most concerned and most effected by construction. He submitted a letter concerning all of this and he didn't want to retract from that letter and didn't see much point in padding it, but he learned at the last meeting that an appearance at this podium was more important and carried more weight then a letter. Therefore he wanted to weigh in with three very elementary facts . Staff, both this evening and in their written report, said that a critical component of this whole operation was a solid block wall across Acacia connecting to his fence. It appeared to him that this critical component is an ample and obvious acknowledgement that this project was so blatantly, outrageously intrusive that the residential area must be protected. Third, he felt it would be a sad, sorry commentary on the system if the citizens had to barricade themselves to avoid evils that this commission has the power to prevent in the first place. The only way the commission could approve this project was to totally disregard his rights in this matter. Commissioner Ferguson noted that Mr. McDaniel lived across the street, he was geographically the closest resident to this property and the proposed wall would tie into his wall . �.. He indicated that he was the one who made the comment at the last meeting that it made a greater impact on him to talk to the person and gage their concerns by having them come down to the podium tonight, rather than just signing a form letter that told him nothing about their individual concerns . He noted that Mr. McDaniel didn't like the project and would like it to go away was one option; the second option was that if the project was going to be built, he asked if Mr. McDaniel wanted the wall or not. Mr. McDaniel stated that with or without the project, a wall was an insult. It was just adding insult to injury. Commissioner Ferguson asked for clarification that if the gym was built, he was still against the wall; Mr. McDaniel replied, yes, in any way. MS. DIANA LA MAR, 43-827 Acacia Drive at the northwest corner of Glorianna and Acacia, said that commission received a letter she had written today addressing the problem. She said that she and Sharon Howard surveyed the neighborhood in person and gave the commission a colored xerox of a plat that showed the numbers and names of the residents they contacted. She said that the plat she had was not too good and she could stand corrected on it, but she calculated that there were approximately 53 residences in the Palm Dell Estates . rNW 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 z She said that there might be more--there was some vacant land and there were now some office professional businesses . Out of the 53, which was 75% of the people that were contacted said they either didn' t want the project or if the project had to built they were in favor of the wall . Sixteen people had sent letters opposed to the project and/or traffic and the 14 that she personally contacted definitely said that they did not want the project. The project was still proceeding and being heard even though the people in the neighborhood were not wanting it. This afternoon she called 38 people that were on the petition to close at least Acacia and almost 100% of those people she contacted, and she contacted approximately 29 or 30 of them in person, did not want the project. They all felt that they have lived here and come to Palm Desert for many years, and they had shopping centers that go up and within a year or two every shop was empty and the people ran over to the new shopping center. She was at 111 Town Center recently and they have a banner in every vacant store front and an 800 number to call . They were obviously looking for tenants . There are structures over there, lighting over there, plumbing, paving and it would save Mr. Oliphant at least three quarters of his $3.4 million that he is investing in this property. The people in the neighborhood don't want to see another vacant building. If the commission approved it, she asked that commission approve at least a five year mandatory residency and keep the tenant in there and then approve another five years after that so that there would be something there for at least ten years . She said it "blew her mind" to see Waring Plaza lose tenants to a new shopping center and the old Circuit City structure was a huge structure in that area and all they did was move across the street because they needed larger quarters . They needed larger quarters but now that building was empty. That empty building was large and could accommodate this project. She didn't know why Mr. Oliphant was absolutely insisting on building at that corner. That corner was a complicated corner and Mr. Drell addressed the fact that it was a very high rent area. She said that of course it was high rent. There weren't very many people in the neighborhood that knew that the Estate was leasing to a major contractor who then leased it to Mr. Oliphant, who was then leasing it to someone else or helping to build or investing in it. He wants a return on his money; everyone wants that, but they didn't need to be greedy. The concerns 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 of the neighborhood needed to be addressed. Mr. Oliphant had no idea of what the streets were or where they were or the location of anything or the traffic pattern, was totally inconsiderate, and all he wanted to do was build his structure. He didn't want to even admit that 1500 members would generate 1,050 cars per day, in addition to their 330 that was a very conservative addition and was probably taken during the summer. Every time she turned around she saw a red and white concrete truck going down the street. There was no reason it had to go down their street. It comes from Parkview and it was easier because they didn' t have to stop at the light. They got a lot of traffic because people didn't want to loiter at the long lights . As far as money or mitigation was concerned, if she couldn't have the project out of there, she wanted the wall . She felt that it was horrendous that someone had to be that greedy and inconsiderate. People in the neighborhood didn't know that it would be a 25 foot high structure. They didn't know it would be three stories with the subterranean parking structure underground to accommodate the number. She asked why they should go through all of this and asked who would rent it when it went "belly up" . She said that she was very opposed to �... it and had been in contact with the people in the neighborhood and had a good feeling for what they didn't want. They didn't want the fitness club and if they had to have it and if it was crammed down their throat (this would be like Rancho Mirage where the voters voted against the La Mirada project, but there was a hotel and golf course regardless of what the little people wanted) . Commissioner Jonathan said that if Ms . La Mar had objections to the proposed application, he wanted to hear what those concerns were. Ms . La Mar stated that she was concerned about the hours of operation and the amount of traffic generated and the increased lighting at night. Commissioner Ferguson asked for clarification that Ms . La Mar was concerned that this was a three story building and the 25 feet in height bothered her. Ms . La Mar concurred. She said it was higher than others and she felt he wanted to build an edifice and while she might sound sarcastic, that was what she was basically picking up on. The height would impinge on the whole view of the corner. � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 Y Commissioner Ferguson said that he specifically asked that �f the residents in that neighborhood get involved if they cared about it and he really liked the chart Ms . La Mar submitted because he could see who sat where and if they were not on the chart they were obviously farther away. Ms . La Mar said that Sharon Howard should be credited for the color markings . Commissioner Ferguson said that the commission' s role was to balance interests like Mr. Oliphant' s and the residents ' . He didn't think the city could expect Mr. Oliphant to sit on vacant land and if it a project was properly zoned, with the proper application, proper conditions and hurdles (and they heard that one was $191, 000 just to widen the road a little bit and underground cables) , and certainly whatever went in there would have an impact on their neighborhood, one way or another, so they were trying to explore ways to minimize that impact. Ms . La Mar stated that with the fitness project as it stands and the architecture, it wasn't a minimum impact. MS. SHARON HOWARD, 43-866 Adonis Drive, said that at the last commission meeting she understood one of the commissioners to say that he considered the neighborhood to be pretty apathetic, or something to the effect, and that they should get off their butts . Well, that' s what they did. She walked through the neighborhood and people were not apathetic, they were uninformed. Apparently the legal notification was a very limited area. Not only were people on Adonis, Glorianna, Acacia, and Arboleda concerned. They were concerned way over to San Juan, Mimosa. Not necessarily about the sports club, but everyone was sick and tired of traffic. Their neighborhood was not just exactly like every other neighborhood in Palm Desert. It sat in a unique spot, it got a lot of pass-through traffic from Trader Joe ' s, the Town Center, and everyone that wishes to avoid that intersection. If she understood correctly, the traffic studies seemed to be a little minimal and limited at this time. They live in that neighborhood and they see what goes on and they care about their neighborhood. They would like to have something done about the traffic in conjunction with this project and separately. She noted that Mr. Oliphant said that he should not be held responsible for that wall or for creating that wall or anything to do with the traffic there, but they would be creating additional traffic and they should take some responsibility for the portion of pass-through traffic that their project will cause. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 r.. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he agreed with Ms . Howard in that he didn't think that the existence of the building would have no impact on the community. He spent considerable time with Mr. Smith going over impacts, particularly at her corner, and a lot of people do cut through their property, particularly on Fairhaven and Adonis coming out of Trader Joe' s . Their fear was that if they blocked off Acacia with simply a barricade, people would go up to Adonis, turn around on Glorianna and go back and park next to the building on Acacia and simply walk over to the facility, which was where the gate and card key concept came from. He knew in talking to Mr. Smith that the thought was not unnoticed that people still cut through and there was a recommendation that the city undertake closure, discussions and studies at Adonis and Fairhaven because those don't have a nexus to the property in question, but there was still a problem there. They weren't unmindful of the fact that there was still a problem there. The comments about their neighborhood were exactly as he indicated earlier, that if someone like her comes down and stands in front of him, it had a bigger impact on him because they felt strongly enough about it and shared those concerns as opposed to signing a form letter, which gave him no indication as to the feedback from the community. He wanted to raise that point and assure her that the traffic problems tow had not gone unnoticed. What they tried to do with Mr. Oliphant' s application was to insure that his responsibility only extends to the additional traffic his project would generate and not what Trader Joe 's generates, not what the Street Fair generates or whatever sources the traffic might be in the neighborhood, but it had not gone unnoticed at their level . Ms . Howard said that she didn't think they were asking Mr. Oliphant to be responsible for anyone else' s traffic, but since this has come up they had become far more aware as to the potential for damage to their neighborhood. It was not an easy thing for people to come before the commission. She said she was almost scared speechless already and most people didn't know that this was the way to proceed. They do have those concerns; none of them were engineers and she didn't really understand the way the system works so the actual way that these closures would be structured was probably up to someone that has the knowledge, skills and education to do those things . They were just asking that they not be passed over by the system and that the commission clearly hear their concerns . r.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 Commissioner Ferguson said that he did and assured her that he welcomed her here tonight and he liked hearing first hand what her concerns were and staff did as well . He indicated that public works wouldn't close those streets without talking with the residents and giving the professional approach that it needs . MRS. PERCIVAL, 43-795 Acacia Drive, stated that she and her husband decided to move to that area because they like the quiet neighborhood and she loved it that she could get out and walk her dogs at any time in the morning or at night without any fear of being mugged because it was safe and nice. She felt their neighborhood was wonderfully located, but they were concerned about the new sports facility going in. She asked if it was too late to chose a new site for this new sports center. She said she would have been here before if she knew what was going on and she would have written a letter, but she was here tonight to plead with the commission. If it was possible, don' t build the facility. If it had to be crammed down their throats, put up the wall. Y MR. ROD MURPHY, 72-764 Arboleda, stated that he has two interests in this project. One was the possibility that he would be the general contractor on it. Second was the traffic in the area. The existing traffic in the area was a problem and the commission had heard this from his friends and neighbors in the area. Whether or not this project was built, the traffic situation had to be addressed. People were using their neighborhood to cross over from Parkview to Monterey, particularly on Acacia, San Juan and Arboleda. When they were doing that they were in a hurry and didn't want to stop at a light, so when they go through the neighborhood, they go through the neighborhood at a high rate of speed and that has upset him and his neighbors . Maybe a few were against the club, but he felt what the commission was hearing was that they were fed up with the way the traffic is going through their neighborhood. If the club was not built, or if nothing was built there, they would still hear from the neighbors now that the had come together to do something about it. Chairperson Beaty asked for confirmation that they had already presented this to the city council . Mr. Murphy concurred. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 +r•• Mr. Greenwood said that he wanted to clarify the status of the traffic situation in the neighborhood. There was a petition presented to the city council and council referred it to public works, where they have scheduled some data collection and evaluation of the current situation to try and evaluate the specific request for closures and the other possible alternatives . The traffic evaluation the commission had before them was focused solely on Acacia. The traffic conditions they were hearing about tonight on Fairhaven and Adonis had not been addressed because public works had not been aware of any concerns prior to the July 11 council meeting. They were in the process of trying to resolve those traffic concerns. MS. LYNN WALLACE, a resident on the corner of Fairhaven and San Juan, stated that her biggest concern was traffic. Living on the corner she had two entrances-- one from Fairhaven and the other from San Juan into her driveway. The thing that she had noticed the most was people cutting through Fairhaven and then going to Parkview. They speed around the corner very quickly as she pulls out of the driveway and there had been many times when she was almost hit. She felt something needed to be addressed on that issue. The block walls �•• would be a good alternative. Mr. Oliphant readdressed the commission and stated that they had all heard the concerns of the residents when it comes to traffic in their neighborhood and that was a real issue. He felt it was an issue that needs to be looked at. They were building the last vacant piece of property in that area and being a builder/developer he was used to being called names and referred to as a number of things . He said that was not his nature and they tried to be sensitive to the neighborhood and tried to do a good job. He thought their record of 34 years in the desert would stand up to that. They were concerned about the residents . His own brother-in-law lives on Glorianna and so he had some personal interest there, but this project should not be burdened with conditions that were beyond nexus and if there was a tradeoff that could be generated with the public works department on the right-turn lane, which would seem to become redundant if the commission did want a wall . His real concern about the wall was the ongoing maintenance and liability and that would be a terrible concern. %Wo 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 s Mr. Drell said that he had one comment on the issue of nexus . The traffic engineer' s study referred to the purely traffic operational impacts of the cars on the street and how much volume of traffic could move up and down the street given its width, etc. The basis of staff ' s recommendation was based on the magnitude of change on traffic on Acacia directly as a result of this project and staff saw the potential of the doubling of the current volume of traffic from this one project alone--from approximately 300 cars to 600 cars . While from an operational point it was still excellent and no one would lose a second of time or delay driving down that way, from an impact on the neighborhood of one day having 300 cars and the next day when the facility opens having 600, from a quality of life and an overall environmental concern staff felt that was a significant impact and the nexus was quite clear. Commissioner Ferguson commented they went from an excellent to a good rating by doubling the traffic. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Jonathan said that the staff concluded that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was conditioned on the wall . If the commission was to find that the wall is not an item justified by the application, he asked if staff would reverse it' s negative finding. Mr. Drell replied that the Negative Declaration does not assign the responsibility for mitigation. It identifies the impact and says that if the impact is mitigated, then the negative declaration could be approved. The commission could make the finding that this project will not have a significant impact on this neighborhood and they could modify the negative declaration. If they remove the condition, then he would assume that the commission would make a minute motion to the city council that they would recommend that the city take on the obligation of mitigating the impact. The alternative would be to assign a portion of financial responsibility on the closure and maintenance on the wall to this project and a portion to the city. Those were the options . If it turns out that street is vacated, then it would be on private property, which the property owner would own in conjunction with the adjacent owner and it would be a wall he would maintain just like he is maintaining walls everywhere else on his project. There wouldn't be any special liability as opposed to the other walls . Those were the options, but again, staff identified the impact and commission could 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 `.. disagree that it exists . Commissioner Jonathan said that in that case the commission could still find for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Mr. Drell concurred, as long as someone was assigned the responsibility of mitigating that impact. Commissioner Jonathan said that if there was a wall on Acacia going from the northern property boundary of the project across to Glorianna, that would leave the apartment ingress and egress completely north of that wall . He asked if that had been factored into the traffic impact and if those residents who were accustomed to just going out Acacia to Fred Waring had been apprised of the impact that such a wall would have on them. He asked if that had been factored into the equation. Mr. Drell said that there would be inconvenience to that entire neighborhood to not have access to Acacia, Fred Waring, Fairhaven or Adonis . These people would be impacted in the same way, no more and no less . The judgement that had been made, like the judgement made in every other residential neighborhood at that intersection, that those residents have come to the city and said that they would rather have the inconvenience of leaving their neighborhood by a more circuitous route in exchange for the elimination of pass-through traffic. It was correct that �r.. they didn't notify all of the residents of the apartments, only the property owners . Commissioner Jonathan felt that they had a good and substantive discussion and he had to express his own concern about having discussion about cost issues . one of the pleasures he enjoyed serving on the commission was that they didn't really need to deal with politics or cost and they could evaluate what was right for the community or wrong for the community and make their own evaluation of that and if an applicant could factor that into his costs, great. He personally enjoyed not being influenced by cost issues, but simply on the merits of an application, so he didn't care to get into whether there was an offset for a wall versus a right-turn lane versus a bus stop. He preferred to look at what was appropriate for the neighborhood, city and applicant and make the evaluation on that basis . With that in mind, he thought that the neighborhood probably needed a wall or some kind of mitigation to the traffic, but he didn' t feel their problem was this project, or a medical office that would follow, or an office office, or whatever it might be. The city is growing and they were in a nice neighborhood, but they were not an island unto itself. They were part of the community of the city of Palm Desert and traffic would impact 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 them as it does everyone. There were some potential mitigations and one was a wall. He didn't live behind closed gates so he sympathized with the gentleman who said he didn't want to live behind a wall . Maybe that was not the perfect mitigation. He felt there were some alternatives out there for the residents and for the neighborhood, but they had very little to do with this project. If they looked at alternative developments that could occur on that corner, this wasn't that bad. They could do worse. Looking at the application he felt it stood on its own merits . He was concerned about what impact there would be if the city chose to put in a wall on the overall traffic circulation and what it would do to the project in terms of the possibility of making more real estate available to it, which might cause a change in design which might be favorable or unfavorable. He felt they might need to continue the application to simply let the issue "play out" in terms of what the city council intends to do about the wall . He suggested for consideration continuing the application, which in his opinion stood on its own merit and there had been a lot of improvements made to the project itself and he was satisfied with it, but the problem he had was that there was mitigation needed for the traffic in the neighborhood and depending what mitigation took place, the changes might affect the project. He felt it might be putting the cart before the horse if they were to vote on the project itself because they might see changes that would impact the ultimate design and layout of the project itself . Commissioner Ferguson said that he thought that the problem with government was that too often it has ignored costs . Causing someone to put in a $191,000 right-turn lane into a wall was about one of the stupidest things he had ever heard. No one had advocated that, but they just couldn' t not worry about cost and assume that some day the wall would come down and they would have a right-hand turn lane. He said he was sympathetic with all of the things that they have heaped upon Mr. Oliphant in terms of undergrounding and offsite improvements with respect to Monterey and Fred Waring and he said he knew the applicant well enough to know that $3,000 was not a big issue with him financially, but he looked at this as the extra straw for the camel ' s back on top of what he felt was a very thinly financed in terms of volume that this establishment would have to do to meet its capital expenditures . The sense he was getting was that it was one step too far and he was sympathetic with that. He said at the last meeting that he thought they had reviewed the application when it went over to Portola and it didn't 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 +�•.• receive a warm reception at Planning Commission and they limited its use. City Council went one step further. Planning Commission told the applicant they had to file plans by May 1 and pull permits by September 1 and that they had to relocate. Now they were somewhere else on a private piece of property that Mr. Oliphant holds and he understand Ms . La Mar' s comments about the chain of title, who holds that and how much was being paid for those rights, but the thing that he did agree with Commissioner Jonathan on was that the land was going to be developed. He noted that someone said a long time ago that God stopped making land but he didn't stop making people and they would come, it was just a matter of accommodating and channeling that growth. That was what they were trying to do tonight. He stated that he had no problem with the project, but he was not unmindful that it would have an impact on the neighborhood. He felt that there had been an unnecessary blending of two issues which has had a positive benefit, at least for the public works department and the traffic engineer in that there was a much bigger traffic problem here as well as the incremental increase in traffic added by this project. He said that he supported the concept of a wall and would support having that wall put in place in conjunction with an overall study of the entire neighborhood that addresses the entire traffic circulation problem and he wanted to see the developer incur the financial obligation with respect to the wall without the continuing liability. He felt that could be imposed as a development fee, he could post a bond and when the wall gets built in connection with the overall traffic plan, it could be agreed and understood tonight that the developer would bear that cost. It could be written in as a condition. With respect to whether or not there was a right-hand turn lane or bus bay, the indication from the applicant tonight was that he would be willing to work with traffic and as Mr. Drell indicated the commission could delegate the authority to Mr. Folkers with the understanding that the applicant would agree with the final decision. He stated that he would be prepared to move approval. Commissioner Fernandez stated that he agreed with Commissioner Ferguson. He believed that the applicant went out of his way to meet all of the conditions . Commissioner Fernandez was concerned and sensitive to the neighborhood traffic, but he was in favor of the project and felt it was a good project. Things in Palm Desert would keep growing and they had to look towards the future. %NW 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 Commissioner Campbell said that she knew there was a traffic problem there and as far as the project was concerned, there were many empty spaces in Palm Desert available. She would hate to see this building built and in six months or a year have it vacant and not be able to fill it up. She asked if it would be applicable to put in some kind of condition on the building on the athletic club as stated by Ms . La Mar to have the applicant in the building for at least three years and to have that as a condition on the approval. She could see many things happening on E1 Paseo where a building was empty, people come in and sign a three month lease and as soon as they go in they were putting up a going out of business sign and in three months were gone. She asked if that would be appropriate. Mr. Oliphant spoke from the audience and said that Mr. Muro would be the owner of the building. Commissioner Campbell asked if he could go ahead and state that and put it down on record that Mr. Muro would be in that building permanently since he was the owner of the building. Chairperson Beaty noted that the courts were full of bankruptcy cases . Commissioner Ferguson said that they could say that they want the applicant there for ten years, but felt that legally there was nothing they could do to enforce it. Mr. Rudolph agreed that there was no way they could guarantee a business 's success and could not condition it around this . He didn't believe that the commission had the authority to interfere with negotiating the terms between private parties . That became a private contractual matter between them. Commissioner Campbell said that she didn't want to see the building adding to the other vacant space, but if it was built, she would be in favor of having Acacia walled. Chairperson Beaty said that he would like to see an attractive building built on that corner. He shared Mr. Oliphant' s concerns about the imposition of the wall and he liked Mr. Ferguson's suggestions regarding the liability. He didn't feel the commission should be judging whether or not the project would be financially solvent or successful . He had questions but didn't feel they could pass judgement on those issues . He hoped the lot would be developed some day. The traffic increase over that of an office professional use he felt was significant. It might be mitigated by the wall, but he was still not convinced that they have talked enough about the impacts to the neighborhood other than traffic and those issues were with the noise, the hours (6 : 00 a.m. to 9 : 00 p.m. ) and he felt this would be an unfair imposition on that neighborhood. He liked the project and the Fitness Mart 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 and agreed that there were a lot of vacancies in the city. He noted that Mr. Muro had said that he had a lease signed in the III Town Center that fell apart and he sensed that might be another option. He would reflect back to his suggestion at the last meeting where he would like the city to get involved with Mr. Oliphant and that corner so that perhaps an office professional or some lower impact use could be financially possible. He requested a roll call vote. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that in his comments he didn't mean to imply that government should over-burden or over-impose itself on the forces of free market. He was simply pointing out that in their role as a planning commission that costs or financial impact on an applicant should not be a consideration. He was simply appealing to the broader perspective of their role and being aware that there is a city council, staff and other avenues for dealing with costs . This commission should not be burdened with those considerations . He didn't have a problem with the way the discussion was going, his only concern would be that he would like to see the project proceed, but if there was going to be a design change as a result of a wall or lane change, he would like to see the project again if there was a significant design change. He didn' t know how much real r.. estate they were considering. Mr. Drell clarified that they were only talking about ten to 15 feet. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he would move that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 1752 as stated in their packet, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a request by Rick Muro for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and precise plan/conditional use permit for an 18,489 square foot two story athletic club in the O.P. zone at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive, subject to the following amendments : 1) That the developer's contribution to cover the cost of the wall be posted in a form of a security acceptable to the city, a development fee, and that the developer not have ongoing liability and financial responsibility for the wall . Mr. Drell asked if he wanted to add "unless it is on private property" which would occur in the event of a vacation. Commissioner Ferguson concurred and added 2) that Mr. Folkers be given the authority to evaluate the need, in light of the wall placement, of the right-hand turn lane/bus bay and give him authority subject to Mr. Oliphant' s/the applicant ' s consent, or condition their approval subject to their agreement on that issue. low 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings . Carried 3-2 (Chairperson Beaty and Commissioner Campbell voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1752, approving PP/CUP 96-5, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 3-2 (Chairperson Beaty and Commissioner Campbell voted no) . Mr. Drell announced that the decisions of the Planning Commissioner were appealable to the City Council . The form could be obtained from the city clerk' s office and must be filed within 15 days . B. Case Nos . CUP 96-19 and VAR 96-4 - SANTA FE HOMES OF AMERICA, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit and setback variance to allow the conversion from residential to office use and expansion from 2479 square feet to 4178 for the existing R-3 zoned property at the northwest corner of Portola Avenue and Alessandro Drive. Mr. Smith explained that the commission received an updated site plan in that the applicant was before the architectural review commission at its last two meetings and at its meeting last week ARC granted conceptual approval . Originally the building expansion had been for 4178 square feet. The new total addition would be 4,000 square feet. In order to achieve acceptable landscape buffers, specifically on Alessandro and to a lesser extent on Portola, the amount of the expansion needed to be reduced. The applicant has done that and they now have seven and a half feet of landscape area on the Alessandro side which is what is provided on the Alessandro side of the Gregory building on the other side of the intersection. The suggestion of ARC was the installation of street trees planted in the sidewalk on Alessandro before the sidewalk was poured and also put palm trees in the seven and a half foot dirt area. On the Portola side, the city was taking 14 feet off of the lot for future street improvements . He said this would not be done soon because they didn't have any widening on the west side of Portola to the north of this site. Eventually the street would be widened by about eight feet. That meant that out of the 14 feet they were left with 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 i•. six feet that would continue to be dirt even after the street was widened and the sidewalk was put in, plus the five feet of setback on the building, which gave them 11 feet of planter area in front of the building. He felt this was reasonably consistent with the building across the street, which was approximately 14 feet and the difference was that this was a single story 16 foot high structure and the one across the street was two stories and approximately 21-22 feet high. Staff looked at the three other corners of this intersection, as well as the Godecke building at the corner of Deep Canyon and Alessandro. Staff felt that what they would accomplish here even with the granting of the variances would be consistent with what has been achieved there. Considering the amount of exaction the city was taking in the form of the 14 foot dedication requirement for future street widening, staff felt that the variances were warranted and that the conditional use permit to allow the conversion of the two residential units to an office use and the variances _. could both be supported by staff. He said that this was a Class 3 categorical exemption for the purposes of CEQA. Staff recommended approval as amended and as recommended by the architectural review commission. Commissioner Campbell asked where the ingress and egress `.. points were; Mr. Smith explained that the public works department required as one of their conditions that the project provide ingress on Alessandro and egress on Portola. This would mean a one-way system entering off of Alessandro and exiting onto Portola. Commissioner Campbell asked if a person was going north on Portola from Highway 111 and they wanted to enter this building, they would have to go all the way down to the next street, make a left and then go around San Jacinto which was closed, so they would have to go down to the next block and then to Alessandro. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Smith concurred. Mr. Greenwood disagreed and clarified that a car going northbound on Portola could do a left-turn onto Alessandro and then access the site. He said that there were no east or west bound movements, but all north and south movements were still there. Commissioner Ferguson asked if the parking spaces were striped the wrong way on the plan for the ingress/egress pattern. Mr. Smith concurred and explained that the applicant proposed it one way and public works requested that it be the opposite way. In looking at the plan it could be turned around with a minor amount of revision. Commissioner Campbell asked if the parking lot went from Portola to San Jacinto or if it just went into the driveway on Alessandro--there was a break in the sidewalk before reaching San Jacinto and also asked where 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 the west property line was located. Mr. Smith explained that the property would be 112 feet wide on Alessandro which would be 300-400 feet away. Mr. Smith stated that a letter was received from Mr. Charles Clary at 44-855 San Jacinto which was on the west side of San Jacinto. He referred to a steady decline in elevation on the slope of the land. Mr. Smith indicated that Alessandro in this block seemed to be fairly flat to him. Chairperson Beaty thought that he might be referring to the decline to the north. Mr. Smith said that he looked at Mr. Clary's property and it was one lot in from the corner at Alessandro and San Jacinto. He was right inside the wooden barricade. Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Clary was in the audience--he was . Chairperson Beaty said that they might need a clarification from Mr. Clary at the appropriate time. Mr. Drell said that he would like to add condition #10 to the Department of Community Development. He said it was a condition that the city wanted which would be included in all precise plans pursuant to the Property Maintenance Ordinance, that the applicant be required to enter into an agreement and provide with final landscaping plan a long-term maintenance program for the property, and then the condition was the same as the one written into the Muro resolution. That the project include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials . All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was present and wished to address the commission. MR. GABRIEL LUJAN, New Age Design Concepts at 43-875 Washington Street, Suite G in Palm Desert, stated that they agreed with them. He didn' t see a problem with the project. He noted that the building right now was very run down and they were trying to improve that corner and would like to see this project approved. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there had been one concern expressed and a proposed solution was to increase the block wall on the northern boundary to eight feet in height. He asked if that were to be a condition if that would be a problem for the applicant. Mr. Drell suggested that commission hear from Mr. Clary first. Commission concurred. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 �•• Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. CHARLES CLARY thanked the commission for hearing him and apologized for any confusion from his letter. He said their concern was two fold--to create the largest buffer between the business and residential community. He said that apparently this section would be the buffer for them. He indicated that standing in his front or back yard and looking toward the current development on the south side of Alessandro, it was at a raised elevation, although not much, but it basically stepped to the door at chest or eye level, so his point was that the grade seemed to go downhill a little bit. Because they were elevated (although the issue was not really relevant to this applicant now) they didn't want anyone looking right into their backyards . He said that he was trying to set a precedent for any other development that comes along on that street. He hoped there would be more development and felt this project really looked fantastic. He was excited for it but wanted to enhance the appearance. If it was going to be a block wall, that was fine. If it was going to be six feet high, that would be okay and six feet seemed to be consistent �.. with what was farther down east of Portola. He suggested a little more landscaping and his concern was to increase the buffer because they have a lot of traffic and noise and they have been having a lot of crime/problems in their neighborhood. He said they were excited about the creation of a buffer zone and suggested two extra courses of brick on the wall height and didn't feel that would cost too much money. He said that the landscape plan called for 15 gallon Australian Bottle trees and suggested adding a few more of those and this would appease the residents on San Jacinto Street. Mr. Drell asked if a seven foot wall would be acceptable to Mr. Clary; he replied yes . MR. GARY TRYON, 74-047 San Marino Circle which was right across the street, asked if this would be a genuine 9 : 00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p.m. day time office professional use only or if it would be like the mess that was created over at the Gregory building parking lot with the late night commercial parking. �" 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 Mr. Drell explained that there had been no conditional use or extraordinary approvals requested by the applicant. It was a pure office building at the present time and that was all that the approval would cover. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that this would be subject to a conditional use permit, so if he experienced a problem with late hour usage or anything like that the commission would like to hear about it. Mr. Lujan informed commission that they were six inches below the grade of the block, so in reality they would be a six feet six inches . A person would have to be very tall to see over that block wall into properties behind them. A six foot high block wall he felt would be more than sufficient. Commissioner Jonathan said that if the six feet actually meant six and a half, he asked if that would be on the height on the northern side of the property. Mr. Lujan concurred. Mr. Drell asked if that wall would be retaining six inches since it would be six feet on the outside and six feet six inches on the inside. Mr. Lujan replied no, it would be a standard six foot high wall . Mr. Smith clarified that from the outside it would have the appearance of six feet six inches because of the grade change between properties, as it goes the 355 feet to the west that would remain vacant dirt, it would probably drop six inches in that 300 feet. Mr. Lujan said that it would be six feet, plus or minus at some points, but would still not be in the vision of a normal person. Mr. Smith noted that they only heard from Mr. Clary who is on the west side of San Jacinto--they have not heard from the property owner of the immediate residence to the north. That property owner was not asking for a six foot six inches or seven foot wall . He didn't think they should be imposing anything other than the standard city policy which is six feet. Commissioner Jonathan felt that six feet would meet everyone' s needs and seemed to be the consensus . Chairperson Beaty indicated that Mr. Clary should address those questions when the lots closer to his residence developed. Chairperson Beaty asked if the owner of the closest property owner was noticed; Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for comments or action. 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 `r Commissioner Jonathan felt that the exceptions being requested were justified and he was prepared to move for approval, as amended by Mr. Drell . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1753, approving CUP 96-19 and VAR 96-4, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. C. Case No. CUP 96-20 - ERIC KRUDEL, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow operation of a 1575 square foot European style wine bar with draft beer, espresso and finger foods at 73-900 E1 Paseo in the C-1 S.P. zone. Mr. Smith distributed a floor plan of the project to the commission and explained that the request was for a European- style wine bar with draft beer, espresso and finger foods on the north side of El Paseo, immediately west of Spectacular Shades, which is Commissioner Campbell ' s business . He said that the facility would be 1575 square feet and proposed hours of operation during the season would be 11 : 00 a.m. until 12 : 00 midnight seven days per week and during the summer it would be the same but they would be closed Monday and Tuesday. As indicated in the staff report, typically staff looked at parking availability. On the floor plan distributed, this unit only takes access from E1 Paseo, it was not a through unit with access to the President ' s Plaza parking lot. Considering the time of the year, he didn't feel a parking survey in that area would be very meaningful, so staff was at the discretion of the local businesses and property owners . He spoke with Commissioner Campbell about the use and she could express her views on the matter, but basically she seemed to have no objection to the use. Staff felt the findings could be affirmed to approve the conditional use permit in this location. The matter was a Class 3 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA. Staff placed a condition that permitted a maximum seating capacity of 30 seats and that the use would not be allowed to have any outside entertainment. Staff recommended approval . o.r 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant would be allowed to have outside seating. Mr. Smith replied that the unit in question is set back from the property line, but he was unsure of the actual distance, but said that it might be possible for him to have a small outdoor patio without impacting on the public sidewalk. Mr. Drell noted that the ordinance would allow, with 30 seats, one outside seat for every five indoor seats, which meant he could have six if there was room physically for it. Since he was serving beer and wine it would have to be gated off in a manner to be approved by the city. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. KRUDEL, the applicant, stated that he was present. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR to OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He requested commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be a grease trap required for cooking and what kind of finger foods would be provided. Mr. Smith directed the question to the applicant. He said that the Department of Building & Safety and the Health Department would ultimately make that determination. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Krudel if the finger foods would be hot or cold. Mr. Krudel said that he would only be serving five to seven items so there would not be a grease pit or grill there. They would have an electric/gas stove. Commissioner Ferguson noted that this was covered by condition no. 1 in that the applicant would have to comply with all state, county and city regulations, which would include the Health Department. Chairperson Beaty asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . 9 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16 , 1996 Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1754, approving CUP 96-20, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. VAR 96-3 - ROBERT AND JAN LILAC, Applicants Request for adoption of a resolution approving a variance to Section 25 . 16 . 060 G of the Municipal Code (maximum coverage limit for R-1 lots greater than 10,000 square feet and less than 15,000 square feet) specifically to increase the maximum allowable coverage from 30% to 37% for a lot on the east side of Olympic Drive, specifically 48- 570 Olympic Drive, Lot 151, Tract 13008. Mr. Smith explained that the commission had a draft resolution before them in which staff enumerated a series of findings to justify approval of the variance, which was the commission' s direction at the last meeting. Commissioner Ferguson said that he went back through the minutes relating to Commissioner Jonathan' s comments that there wasn' t a problem with respect to required finding numbers 3 or 4 . There was some discussion that somehow forcing this ordinance at this point would impose such a hardship and condition number 4 basically said what the commission found was that revising the plans would impose a practical difficulty. Commissioner Ferguson asked if the proposed wording was a euphemistic way of saying the same thing. Mr. Drell concurred that it meant a practical difficulty because the finding said a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Commission directed staff to say that yes, it was creating a practical difficulty, therefore that finding was fulfilled. Staff was not going to editorialize on the strength of the finding, but they were saying that commission directed staff to make that finding and it was done. Commissioner Ferguson said that the problem he had was that he didn't direct staff to find that revising the plan would be a practical hardship. What he said was that if they enforce it now, it would be selective enforcement and that would be an unfair and unjust hardship on the applicant. Mr. Drell concurred, but said that by making that finding they would be amending the code and committing the city to not enforce an ordinance in the city. r.. 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 He didn't believe as a variance that the commission could make that sweeping statement that this ordinance would not be enforced. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a problem with the stated wording. Commissioner Ferguson stated that there were two issues . He had a feeling that this would go up to the city council on an appeal and the council would want to know what their factual findings were and this was not what he factually found. Mr. Drell asked why it would go up on appeal . Commissioner Ferguson said that every indication he got was that the adjacent property owner did not agree with the commission' s decision and would file an appeal . Commissioner Ferguson said that whether it went up on appeal or not, he wanted it to say what he said. Mr. Rudolph said that the commission could make findings that they wanted to make, but they had to make the findings that the code requires for the variance--at least that. The code requires the commission to either find a physical hardship or practical difficulty and they had to find one of those two. That requirement could not be ignored because it came out of the code and if the commission wanted to add something to that, he would advise against it if it had the wording about selective enforcement, but that was the commission's prerogative to add those additional findings if they wanted, although it would be against his recommendation, but they had to make at least these minimum findings because that was what the code required in order to grant the variance. Commissioner Ferguson said that going full circle to his original question, which was if this was a euphemistic way of saying that this was a hardship because the applicant would have to go back and redraw their plans . Mr. Drell said that it was a finding that staff felt was most defensible. He didn't believe that the finding suggested by Commissioner Ferguson was defensible. It might be a reason for the criticism of past policies, but it was not a finding. If the ordinance was enforced unevenly, it could be justification for amending the ordinance, not justification for granting a variance. Commissioner Ferguson asked if an appeal had been filed on this case. Mr. Drell replied no, since the resolution had not been adopted and there was nothing to appeal . Mr. Smith said that the appeal period would start tomorrow. Mr. Drell indicated that it was not necessarily a foregone conclusion that it would be appealed. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he had no problem with voting on this tonight. 34 '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 16, 1996 • Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1755, approving VAR 96-3, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . B. Discussion of Scheduling Study Session on August 6, 1996 to Review the City's Project 2010 Strategic Plan Chairperson Beaty asked if Commissioner Jonathan was going to be absent from that meeting. He concurred, but said they go ahead with the study session without him. Commissioner Campbell asked who would be making the presentation. Mr. Drell replied John Wohlmuth, the Assistant City Manager. Action: Commission concurred with the recommendation to hold a study session on August 6, 1996 at 6 : 00 p.m. to review the city' s Project 2010 Strategic Plan. h..r X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE None. XI . COMMENTS None. XII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting to August 6, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was-a ourn_e_d at 9 : 08 p.m. L PHILIP DRILL, Secretary ATTEST: 11 /� I , r PAUL R. BEATY, Chairpifrson Palm Desert Planning Commission %" /tm 35