HomeMy WebLinkAbout1119 MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 19, 1996
7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
WSW
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Beaty led in the pledge of allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson
Sonia Campbell
Jim Ferguson
Sabby Jonathan
Members Absent: George Fernandez
Staff Present: Phil Drell Jeff Winklepleck
Sandy Jacobson Mark Greenwood
Steve Smith Tonya Monroe
Martin Alvarez
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Consideration of the November 5, 1996 meeting minutes.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson,
approving the November 5, 1996 minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0
(Commissioner Fernandez was absent).
V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION:
Mr. Drell summarized pertinent November 14, 1996 City Council actions.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Case No. PMW 96-40 - American Stores Properties, Inc., Applicant
Request for approval of a parcel map waiver for lot line
adjustments for lots A and B at the northeast corner of Deep
Canyon Road and Highway 111 , also known as APN 625-100-
004, 625-100-015, 625-100-016, 625-100-021 , and 625-100-
022.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0.
Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS
..r
A. Continued Case No. CUP/PP 96-18 - MCFADDEN/MCINTOSH
ARCHITECTS FOR CAM'S CORNER, Applicants
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact and conditional use permit for construction and operation
of a fuel station/convenience store for property at the northwest
corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Deep Canyon Road, also known as
APN 625-095-003 and 004.
Mr. Smith noted that plans were on display and that this matter was before
the commission several times previously. He noted that the last hearing was
on September 3, 1996 at which time several people spoke in favor and in
opposition. At that time the commission continued the matter to a date not
certain to allow the applicant time to complete a traffic impact analysis and to
try and make further progress toward resolving some issues with the
Architectural Review Commission. When the traffic was complete, staff re-
noticed this matter in the newspaper as well as mailing the notice to property
owners within 300 feet. At the September 3 meeting there were three areas
of concern that were still outstanding: the first involved the possible traffic
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
r..
impacts in the area, the second was the applicant's concerns with the
conditions placed on him by the Architectural Review Commission and third,
issues raised by the members of the public at that time. He reported that the
traffic impact analysis was completed and it essentially identified possible
impacts to the Alessandro/Deep Canyon intersection, specifically mitigation
suggested is to create a left-turn lane from eastbound Alessandro to
northbound Deep Canyon. As well, the traffic study indicated that there
should be no parking on both sides of Alessandro. Regarding concerns of the
Architectural Review Commission, the applicant returned to Architectural
Review on September 24. The revised plans increased the building setback
from Alessandro to 11 %Z feet from the property line and 18 feet from the face
of the curb which had been requested by ARC. The other two conditions of
ARC were to eliminate part of the third pump island (the driveway on the
outside of it) and increase the landscaping into that area. He demonstrated on
the map the difference that would result from those changes. The matter was
at ARC on September 24 and October 8. It did not receive a favorable
resolution, so it was back at Planning Commission in essentially the same
position. The canopy at the meeting of September 24 had been lowered some
two and a half feet. It was not received favorably. On September 3 Mr.
Smith heard concerns from various members of the public that involved the
intensity of use, the addition of another liquor outlet in the area, over
utilization of the site, hours of operation, traffic impacts, the advisability of the
City vacating property to this site and thereby allowing a larger facility, and the
possibility of loitering. Staff looked at all of those issues and tried to respond
to them as noted in the staff report. Essentially, staff looked at the uses on
the site. Staff felt that the traffic impact study said that the circulation to and
on the site was adequate. Staff looked at it from a parking perspective and
felt there would be adequate parking. Mr. Smith pointed out that under the
present scenario there was not adequate parking for a restaurant. The deli
that was being considered would have to have a maximum of eight seats, so
it didn't have to be considered as a restaurant, but a general retail category.
Regarding concern about the additional liquor license, there were at least two
package liquor outlets within 1 ,000 feet: Country Club Liquor across Highway
1 1 1 and the new Lucky's store, as well as a third outlet which was the bar at
Smoky's immediately adjacent to the west. He noted that commission
reviewed a liquor license on San Pablo south of Circle K. The City Attorney
looked into it and the whole area was over the average, but they were in a
situation where they haven't determined how or when they would say no to
another liquor license. In this case it would be beer and wine sales only.
r..
Regarding the hours of operation, the applicant wished to be open 24 hours.
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
.■i
Lucky's, on the property immediately to the east, would be open 6:00 a.m.
until 12:00 a.m. (midnight) seven days a week. As well, it had restricted
delivery hours to less than that. Traffic concerns were addressed in the traffic
study and mitigation measures were proposed. With respect to vacating
property to this site, he said that the Department of Public Works advised that
for some time they have intended to vacate the property that was not
necessary once they complete the intersection improvements at Highway 1 1 1
and Deep Canyon. In this instance the vacated property as shown on the site
plan and the landscape plan, much of it would be in landscaped area and the
applicant would maintain it. Regarding loitering, the applicant was also
concerned about that problem and he suggested a series of self-imposed
conditions. As well, the conditions were included in the draft resolution as
condition numbers 12-20. He read conditions as follows: 12) No loitering shall
be permitted; 13) No distilled spirits sales permitted; 14) No open alcoholic
beverage containers or consumption; 15) Litter to be picked up twice a day;
16) Public telephones restricted to prevent receiving calls; and 17) No arcade
machines. In conclusion he noted that staff did not have a resolution between
the applicant and the ARC. The ARC at its meeting of October 8 reaffirmed
its decision of August 13 and at that point the applicant filed an appeal to that
decision. That matter has not yet been referred to the City Council, but it
would be in the near future. He pointed out that the site plan presented by the
applicant complies with all the code requirements and the site plan that would
result should the ARC plan be implemented would also comply with all the
requirements of the ordinance. He said that he had attended all the meetings
of the ARC except one and he reviewed at length the minutes of all those
meetings. He concluded that the reason ARC was imposing the two
conditions was to minimize the negative aspects of the canopy design. It was
too bulky and too massive. The ARC solution was to cut back the canopy and
increase the landscape depth. He said that he had major concern that they
would try to use landscaping to screen the shortcomings of architecture, hence
staff recommended that Planning Commission approve the request for the fuel
station/convenience store and the accessory uses subject to the canopy being
totally redesigned and thereby reducing the mass and the bulk. He stated that
he met with Mr. Nevins Monday morning and described staff's concerns and
where they were heading with this and he seemed comfortable with the
requirement to redesign the canopy. He concluded saying that staff was .
recommending approval of the request.
Commissioner Campbell asked if, per the Architectural Review Commission
recommendation, the reduction of the canopy would still allow for the third
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
row of the fueling pumps. Mr. Smith explained that ARC was recommending
that the outside driveway of the third island be eliminated and instead of
having six lanes, there would be five, and landscaping would be increased.
Commissioner Campbell asked if staff knew the hours of operation for
Smoky's. Mr. Smith replied that it was probably open until 2:00 a.m., but he
wasn't sure.
Commissioner Jonathan noted that condition no. 25 required that the canopy
should be redesigned to the satisfaction of ARC. He indicated that since they
didn't seem to see this as a possible solution to the problem, he asked if staff
had any objection to the redesign coming back to the Planning Commission as
opposed to the ARC. Mr. Smith said that procedurally he would have a
problem because the ordinance was fairly specific that the review of
architecture rests with that commission. Commissioner Jonathan said that
specific design was an issue that Planning Commission has and does address.
He stated that the commission could continue the matter and ask the applicant
to redesign the canopy and come back to them and then they didn't need to
include condition no. 25.
�.. Chairperson Beaty noted that it sounded like the applicant had already ruled
that out and appealed the decision of ARC to the City Council. Mr. Drell said
that the Planning Commission could make the decision that a particular site
plan would be approved as proposed if they chose and that they would like to
see all of the fueling islands on the site plan covered/shaded. ARC's task
would no longer be cutting back, but coming up with a design for a canopy
that shaded the site plan Planning Commission approved. Also, he felt the
applicant would be more readily inclined to do that redesign knowing that the
site plan was approved. That would give some clear direction and the whole
issue could end up at council in any case. That showed that 95% of it was
approved, but it needed the last aesthetic touch approved.
Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Smith knew the hours of operation of
Country Club Liquors located across the street from the proposed project. Mr.
Smith replied no. Commissioner Ferguson addressed Mr. Drell and said that
as he understood it, the Planning Commission had no review authority over the
Architectural Review Commission. Mr. Drell concurred saying that as he
interpreted the relationship, the ARC has the primary authority over
architectural design and advisory authority as to site planning. The Planning
Commission had the opposite. They have primary authority over site planning
and advisory as to architecture. Commissioner Ferguson stated that the
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
Y
a
1
design of the canopy as proposed would be an architectural facet over which
ARC would have primary authority; the existence or nonexistence of a third
island on both sides and the length of the canopy would be the Planning
Commission's authority. Mr. Drell concurred. He said that the division was
not all that explicit in the ordinance, but that was his interpretation of the
division.
Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would
like to address the commission.
MR. TIM BARTLETT, 73-382 Salt Cedar in Palm Desert, stated that he
was also involved in all of the meetings regarding this project and he
had written a fairly comprehensive letter based on his interpretation and
he asked if the commission had any questions regarding that letter. He
also said that when they approached this project initially, the architect
felt challenged to present something that was out of the ordinary and
he went to great lengths to produce what they felt was something that
was out of the ordinary and it turned out to be the one thing that had
created more conflict than anything else on the project. Staff
recommended, and he concurred with Mr. Smith's interpretation, that
ARC's main problem with the project was that the canopy was too
massive and there was too much architecture. The applicant agreed to
go back to a flat canopy similar to what is seen at most gas stations to
make that massive structure somewhat disappear, which has been the
issue that ARC has been struggling with since the initial application.
They were willing and able to do that if the site plan could be approved
tonight and then go back to ARC with a smaller canopy that would
meet ARC's approval.
Commissioner Ferguson noted that the proposal was before Architectural
Review six or seven times and as he understood Mr. Bartlett's letters, various
correspondence, and testimony by their architect, initially when they submitted
their plans it was suggested that they do a reverse footprint on the site plan
that was before the Planning Commission now. Mr. Bartlett said that was
correct. Commissioner Ferguson said that per the side elevations, it appeared
that the canopy was in fact roughly the same height in front as the rear
elevation was in the back. Mr. Bartlett replied that the canopy was actually
lower than the building. Commissioner Ferguson noted that he was told
previously about the two examples with the reverse footprint, which were the I
Mobile Station at Country Club and Monterey and the Shell Station at Gene
6
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
Autry and Ramon Road. He said if he understood the applicant correctly, the
source of some of their frustration was that if they were to do a reverse
footprint, the visual impact on the intersection would be much greater than
what they were now proposing and asked Mr. Bartlett to expound on that.
Mr. Bartlett stated that was exactly the case. On the reverse profile scenario
the building would be right on the corner. They felt that by setting the
building back they were minimizing the impact to the corner and the main
arterials. The canopy itself, as presented as an issue by ARC, was that it was
too much architecture and previously they were willing to fight for that
architecture and that was why they went to six ARC meetings without giving
it up, but at this point they want to build a fuel station so they would concede
to ARC's wishes and put in a small, flat canopy if that is the wish of the
commission. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he also concurred with Mr.
Smith that after reviewing the renderings and drawings and having looked at
the AM/PM station which he felt was somewhat analogous, he didn't see
where it mitigated the impact at all other than to wipe out the third island. Mr.
Bartlett said that the third island was their full service island which separated
them from an ARCO AM/PM. As they described early on, they were not trying
to build another ARCO, they were not looking for cheap gas and low prices,
but they were looking for a more affluent customer. What they designed and
were providing with the landscaping was way in excess of what even the
Lucky's center was required to build. Lucky's has places where the
landscaping strips between the sidewalk and the curb and between the parking
lot and curb are six feet and looking at Mr. Smith's table, their proposed
project's narrowest point would have more than 12 feet of landscaping. That
was their minimum, so they felt they provided a great project and have
exceeded all the landscaping requirements several times. Commissioner
Ferguson asked for clarification that when Mr. Bartlett said that the third island
would provide full service, if there would be attendants out there the entire
time of their operation. Mr. Bartlett replied yes. Commissioner Ferguson said
that unlike an AM/PM, they would have someone out by the pumps at all
times. Mr. Bartlett replied correct, they would be on that full service island
which was furthest away from the convenience store, which made sense
because typically a full service type person would drive up and not get out of
their car. Commissioner Ferguson said that he could see the merit in having
the canopy extend the way it does. He asked if Mr. Bartlett was willing to
work with architectural changes that preserved the length of the canopy that
they were seeking, but which help mitigate some of the impacts that may be
expressed by either the Council or Architectural Review. Mr. Bartlett
um concurred. Commissioner Ferguson said that if he understood Mr. Bartlett
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
from earlier testimony, the project breaker was the elimination of the third
island and the canopy. Mr. Bartlett replied the third island yes, but the canopy
no. Although they fought for that canopy for six meetings, they were willing
to give it up, but the third pump aisle was very important with access on both
sides of the third aisle.
Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Bartlett had seen the staff report and
the conditions of approval. He asked if Mr. Bartlett had any remaining
objections to the conditions. Mr. Bartlett said that the only objection they
have currently were the hours of operation. The three popular gas stations/
convenience stores (the ARCO station, the Shell at Monterey and 1 1 1 , and the
Chevron at Plaza Way and Highway 1 1 1) were all open 24 hours. They would
just like the same consideration. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Bartlett
would anticipate an appeal to the City Council if there were no remaining
objections. Mr. Bartlett replied no, and said that they would withdraw their
appeal to the City Council of ARC's decision. Commissioner Jonathan said
that if the application was resolved as presented by staff, then the applicant
would have no basis for the appeal. Mr. Bartlett concurred that they would
withdraw the appeal and agreed that was the sole basis for their appeal. He
said that if the Planning Commission would like a flat canopy and they could
make ARC happy with a flat canopy, they were done. Commissioner Jonathan
said that as he understood the interpretation of the relationship between ARC
and Planning Commission was somewhat nebulous. He was not comfortable
approving anything that has a significant element that he didn't get to see and
approve. If the procedure was to give it back to ARC and keep sending it back
and playing a guessing game and let them eventually come up with something
that the Planning Commission likes, fine. But if they could circumvent that
and have the applicant return directly back to them, or be more specific in
what they were looking for, he would like to explore that option. For example,
he was not sure he would prefer a flat canopy or not, but that seemed to be
a significant element and he was not sure he wanted to leave that open. Mr.
Drell stated that the Planning Commission could request that it come back to
them. On the other hand, an appeal of the ARC goes directly to City Council.
He said that the Planning Commission's decision was on the site plan and
there was no ambiguity that the Planning Commission approves the precise
plan. He also indicated that the Planning Commission could request that it
come back to them after it goes to the ARC and they could relay the
information that this has gone on long enough, but the redesigned canopy
should at least go back once to ARC. A decision would be made and it would
move on. If the Planning Commission wanted it to come back before it goes
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
r..
to City Council, they could probably schedule it as a miscellaneous item and
get the recommendation to City Council. He noted that before the City
Council it would be a public hearing. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the
Planning Commission has authority over elevations as well as site plans. Mr.
Drell replied no, the Planning Commission was technically advisory. They
could express their dissatisfaction and try to send things back to ARC, but
there was a gray area. He noted that at one time in the early days the
Architectural Review Commission was specifically subordinate to the Planning
Commission and all approvals of the ARC went on the Planning Commission's
consent calendar for their approval. At some point in time that was separated.
They felt ARC was getting too far into site planning and Planning Commission
was getting too far into architectural issues and things were getting bounced
back and forth. The problem still had not been solved, but if he believed that
there was a continued dispute between Planning Commission and ARC, then
the goal was for Planning Commission to make their position known, ARC
could make its position known, and it would go to City Council for them to
decide.
Chairperson Beaty stated that he felt this discussion was premature in that
tow there were a lot of other issues that people cared more about than the canopy
and he for one wanted to say that he has a lot of respect for the architects
appointed by the City Council and he would not approve a project without a
condition that ARC approve it and he didn't care to see it back. If they like it,
then he was confident that their judgement was much better than his.
Commissioner Jonathan stated that he didn't mean to preoccupy the
commission's time with the issue, but he didn't feel it was premature because
it was relevant in his mind and to his decision-making process and he knows
the people on ARC, some for 20 years, and he respects their opinion, but in
the same way that the City Council respects the Planning Commission's
opinion, the process was best served when another body takes an objective
second or third review of the same issue and builds on that previous decision.
Chairperson Beaty said that speaking for himself, he did not feel he was
qualified to make a judgement on an architectural issue and it was their job
and he trusted them to do it.
MR. CAMERON NEVINS, the applicant, stated that he thought
everything had been answered that could be answered and every
question was asked that could be asked. He said there were two issues
at the meeting yesterday morning with Mr. Smith, the canopy being
r redesigned and hours. He said that the hours were a problem with him
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
because they needed to be on an even playing field with their
competitors. With regards to the canopy, they have no problem with
redesigning it. The problem was more with the time issue, but they
have no problem with redesigning it. They have been at this a long time
and didn't want to keep going back and forth. He stated that he was
asking for the commission's approval per staff's recommendation, with
the exception of the hours. He said they would be back to ARC to
design a canopy and what they envisioned per the feedback from staff
was a canopy that was as thin as possible and as low as possible. It
would be approximately 30-36 inches tall to face and the height would
be 16'/2 feet tall, which was a standard canopy. Unless it was
completely built, a person didn't know if the canopy would overbear the
building and he couldn't say from looking at the picture. They came
into this wanting to build an exceptional site and they were not selling
canopies, so that was not their main goal. They wanted something that
was going to say that this was one of the nicest facilities of this type.
Chairperson Beaty noted that one of the conditions on the ARCO conditional
use permit was that they were not permitted to sell beer and wine from
midnight to 6:00 a.m. That was what he was told by the owner and that was .r
at the insistence of the City Council. Mr. Drell said that he would check into
that. Chairperson Beaty said that the ARCO owner was very happy with that
because he didn't have that liability.
Commissioner Ferguson noted that Mr. Nevins mentioned timing and
Commissioner Jonathan touched on some points that he also agreed with. He
looked at the authority of the Architectural Review Commission in the
Municipal Ordinance and the authority of the Planning Commission. There
were a number of different ways to handle this and each had consequences
in terms of time. For unrelated reasons he happened to be at the Architectural
Review Commission meeting when the potential redesign was brought up. In
short, he didn't know how fruitful sending the applicant back to them was or
if they had the authority to send them back and he understood that they were
on appeal to the City Council. He felt the ambiguity in the code needed to be
addressed because developers would be coming to Palm Desert and he didn't
feel that they should have to go to Architectural Review, up to City Council,
back down to Planning Commission and possibly back to City Council again.
He asked what the applicant's time estimate was in terms of wanting to move
forward and what exactly he would like from the Planning Commission tonight
in terms of a vote, full approval of the original site plan or approval subject to
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
Architectural Review's revisiting this issue giving him leeway to address those
architectural issues in front of City Council. He asked what his thoughts were
on that. Mr. Nevins stated that knowing that the Planning Commission
couldn't overrule ARC, he felt comfortable saying that as far as the site plan
was concerned, they were in agreement with everything Mr. Smith in the staff
report recommended, with the exception of the hours. Regarding cutting the
canopy back and adding more landscaping, they could push the corner berm
another 100 feet and the canopy would still be seen. He said that it would
practically require a full time gardener with all of the landscaping being
provided. ARC finally figured out that they weren't resolving anything by
pushing the landscaping back. He said that he was asking the Planning
Commission to approve the project, he understood that they have to go back
to ARC, so he was asking for approval with the exception of the hours since
they did need to stay open 24 hours. What would be convenient would be if
the Planning Commission members that were concerned about ARC and the
decision on the canopy could attend the ARC meeting and voice any concerns
at that time. Then they would have sped things up and they would not have
to return to Planning Commission.
Commissioner Ferguson said that he wasn't under the impression that they
were going back to ARC, but to City Council. Mr. Smith explained that the
way condition no. 25 was currently worded, in that the canopy design that
ARC saw on September 24 was a lower canopy, but it was substantially the
same shape and design. What they were talking about now was a total
redesign. For that reason, staff was suggesting the redesign go back to ARC.
Commissioner Ferguson asked for clarification that when staff was saying total
redesign, if he was talking about pulling it back over the second island. Mr.
Smith replied no. Commissioner Ferguson asked if he was talking about
eliminating the third island; Mr. Smith replied no, they were talking about
essentially the same amount of covered area, just in a different architectural
element. As Mr. Bartlett indicated, as thin as possible and try to make it
invisible. Commissioner Ferguson said that what was before them was the
original site plan with a redesign of the architectural aspects of the canopy
without redesigning the site plan. Mr. Smith concurred.
Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION
to the proposal.
MR. MEL BENJAMIN, a resident of Hidden Palms and a member of the
Board of Directors, stated that he was speaking for the 211 residents
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
of Hidden Palms and possibly most of the residents of The Grove. He
said that he heard comments about wanting an even playing field--they
were a residential neighborhood and they want an even playing field
with other developments. The impact of the Lucky's market coupled
with a 24-hour gas station and convenience store he felt would be
overwhelming to the neighborhood. Across the street there was
Country Club Liquor that was a victim of an armed robbery Sunday
night. He objected to a 24-hour operation. He objected to the whole
project as far as that went because he seriously questioned the traffic
impact study if it was combined with Lucky's market and he didn't
know what the figures were and had not seen the traffic study, but he
asked if it had been combined with that of the Lucky's center on a busy
Friday night.
Mr. Greenwood stated that the traffic study addressed both the impact of just
the gas station project and the combined impact of the preapproved Lucky's
and gas station. The study identified some additional traffic at various
intersections. The only substantial mitigation measure was to stripe a left-turn
lane on Alessandro eastbound at Deep Canyon.
Mr. Benjamin said that he wanted to have his objection on the record.
MR. MIKE TRIPPLY, a resident of Hidden Palms, asked which way the
traffic would flow from Alessandro because in the past he was told that
it would be closed.
Chairperson Beaty said that was not in the plan. The proposal called for
restricted parking, there would be no parking on either side and there would
be a left-turn lane in the center.
Mr. Tripply asked about the back side where all the little income housing
was located; there were a lot of vehicles parking there at night and
there was a lot of drinking and fights that go on there. He asked if that
had been considered during the night or if all the reports were made
during the day because he was a little worried right now when
Commissioner Jonathan was asking questions and he was on the board
and couldn't get any straight answers. Everything had been if, and, or
but. The other question he wanted to ask was when the commission
put in the gas station, which they are against, there was a bus stop and
asked where the entrance to the gas station would be and where the
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
exit would be. He asked if it was all coming into Deep Canyon Road.
He felt the commission had a problem if they didn't know that because
Highway 1 1 1 was a very busy intersection.
Mr. Greenwood clarified that the city was currently proposing a major
intersection improvement at Deep Canyon and Highway 111 . Those
improvements would include an access onto De Anza from Highway 1 1 1 that
would be right-turn in and right-turn out only from Highway 1 1 1 , so if the
project was approved, that would provide access from Highway 1 1 1 to this
project.
Mr. Tripply said that he hoped the commission realized the danger that
would result when they did that. As it stands right now, if someone
wants to get off of Highway 1 1 1 and make a left turn, they had to go
in the back and go toward Smoky's or in the front. Either one of those
places, and they were planning to put in a few other stores in there. He
asked if there had been any consideration for any other business
wanting to go in there other than the current proposal, such as an office
building. He asked if anything like that had been proposed. He said
that he realized that the city had to get tax revenue, but he asked if
they could settle for something other than what was being proposed.
He asked the commission to think about it.
MR. DENNIS GODECKE, the property owner to the immediate north of
the proposed site, stated that usually there were two sides to a story,
but in this case there might be three: the developer's/applicant's side,
city staff's side, and his side. He stated that he has attended a majority
of the meetings with regard to this project and he would like to help the
Planning Commission read between the lines of what ARC was trying
to tell the commission. In six appearances before ARC the project
before the Planning Commission that the applicant was asking to be
approved received not one vote in favor. A motion was made on a
couple of occasions, but it wasn't even seconded. He said that reading
between those lines, ARC didn't like the whole project. It was not just
the canopy. He said that he thought Mr. Smith did go back and read all
the minutes and concluded, in his opinion incorrectly, that it was the
canopy. He felt it was the whole project they didn't like and they
couldn't come up with a way to mitigate all of their concerns.
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
s
s
r
Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Godecke was talking about from an
architectural standpoint or that they didn't want a fuel station.
Mr. Godecke stated that he thought architecturally, screening and all of
the issues they dealt with they were uncomfortable with and it was not
their place to talk about what goes there or not and he understood that.
He felt they understood that also, but they were trying to get the best
project they could get. They asked for a flip-flop design and didn't get
it. They asked for something to be reduced and didn't get it. He felt
they were pretty frustrated. When the developer last departed the
council chamber, he was supposed to go back and get architectural
committee approval and complete a traffic study. The traffic study was
completed and required the addition of a left-turn lane along Alessandro.
Community Development condition no. 24 requires that this property be
dedicated from the development site and that is a condition of
development and he urged that the commission insist upon that as a
condition if they ultimately approve the project. He said that in driving
around trying to see what traffic was like in other areas, he went down
to the AM/PM site. He drove down Alessandro and the first street j
reached is San Jacinto and it is blocked off. You can't make a right
turn and go down San Jacinto and cut back to Portola Avenue. He
presumed in talking to city staff that it was cut off there because of
complaints from the residents regarding traffic and people cutting
through. There would be the same kind of situation along Deep Canyon
with De Anza which cuts back to Deep Canyon exactly like San Jacinto
to Portola. He wondered how long it would be before there were
residents saying that they didn't want all that traffic going through their
neighborhood. He felt the uses of the property and the number of co-
tenants were unclear to him. The traffic study was based on a gas
station and one co-tenant. The project that the Planning Commission
was being asked to approve listed gas station, convenience store and
two co-tenants. He said that he didn't know what these co-tenants
were, they heard deli, a video store and he wanted the commission to
know that it was very popular these days to couple these kinds of
convenience stores/gas stations with fast food outlets like Dairy Queen
and Wendy's. That would have a totally different impact on traffic than
a deli where people just come in and pick up a sandwich. He hoped
that if the commission approved this project that some conditions were i
placed on future uses like Dairy Queens, even though he personally
would like to be able to go across the street and get a Blizzard. The
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
vacation of the property was still an issue. He failed to see what public
purpose was served by vacating this property to a private developer, but
he urged the commission, if they did approve this project, to place as
many conditions and restrictions on it as they feel are necessary to
insure a high quality project that would justify its existence in Palm
Desert. ARC has approved a project, somewhat reduced in size, and if
Planning Commission approved it he believed that the plan should be
amended to those conditions.
MRS. MARY LOU MILLER, resident of Hidden Palms, asked if any of the
commission members had taken into consideration that these
convenience stores were the most likely to be hit by bandits. They
were being robbed right and left. They were also well known for the
fact that they do, although they wouldn't ever admit it, sell narcotics to
kids. There were schools right around the corner and the kids come up
that way to go home. She felt it was a very poorly planned corner.
She asked if anyone had driven down Hidden Palms at 11 :30 p.m.
There wasn't very much traffic and she didn't think people would be
looking for gas at that time of night. She knew that none of them do.
They were scared to go out at night because of robberies and she
would not think of going to a gas station at night, nor would her
husband and most of the people in Hidden Palms and The Grove and the
surrounding houses feel the same way. She felt that was something to
take into consideration and asked the commission to think of the
children that would be affected by it. There was Lucky's coming in
with videos, liquor, there was liquor across the street and they didn't
need much more, and as far as keeping a gas station open 24 hours,
she felt they would be losing money in what they would be putting out
in salaries.
MS. JANE JOHNSON, a real estate broker in Palm Desert, said that this
was probably fruitless on her part because she was beginning to think
that Palm Desert has not seen a set of plans it didn't approve as
evidenced by all the unleased space in Palm Desert and if they were
trying to be neighborly by building a gas station for Indian Wells, they
could go a little further. There were plenty of fuel stations in Palm
Desert.
Mr. Bartlett stated that he would like to address a few concerns/
o. questions that came up. One of those was traffic and he indicated that
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
k
the traffic study did include the gas station by itself and included the
Lucky's and 9,000 square foot building being attached to Lucky's. He
noted that neither of those projects needed a traffic study. He indicated
that Mr. Godecke said that they didn't have ARC approval and he said
that was not entirely true because they have a conditional ARC approval
with a 5-0 vote. Obviously the one issue was the canopy which he felt
had been discussed enough. Regarding the dedication of the land,
essentially they were taking it over to landscape it; the city wouldn't
have to pay for that maintenance and asked if that would affect their
project and answered yes, in some instances. He felt it was a moot
point. Regarding De Anza being similar to a condition on Portola, he
would have to refer that to Mr. Greenwood.
Mr. Greenwood said that it was not all that similar to the issue at hand. The
issue at San Jacinto was that there were quite a lot of commercial properties
that back up to Alessandro and there was an issue of delivery trucks taking a
one block short cut through that neighborhood. De Anza did not join with
Deep Canyon, so that would not present a short cut in that direction.
i
Mr. Bartlett said that in regard to the traffic study, Mr. Godecke made
a comment that they didn't include enough uses or enough intense uses
and what they actually did was say that since the convenience store
was limited to 3,500 square feet and they raised the restaurant use to
2,500 square feet, they took the worst case scenario which was a
restaurant (which they didn't have enough parking for) at the biggest it
could possibly be and used that as the basis for their traffic study.
They took the worst case scenario and the addition of the Lucky's
center and the only mitigating factor was adding the left-turn lane.
Regarding not building in Indian Wells, he didn't disagree that they
would serve Indian Wells, but they were also serving the eastern portion
of Palm Desert. The city recently annexed a lot of property to the east
and they were not currently served by fuel stations.
Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be two tenants in addition to the
gas station/convenience store. Mr. Bartlett replied that he didn't know yet.
They haven't begun to lease since they didn't know if they could build.
Assuming they get approval and that the gas station/convenience store was
one use, they left the door open for two additional uses and didn't know what
those uses would be. Parking restrictions would determine what they can be.
It could be conceivably anything and some ideas were a deli, bagel shop, and
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
other uses that were convenience oriented that could locate here. He said that
he was surprised about Mr. Godecke's concerns about the number of uses
because he didn't think the city was telling him for his office building how
many tenants he could have. He has an office building and he could have 20
tenants or just one to occupy his building. Again, they based the traffic study
on the worst case scenario with a restaurant occupying more land than they
could possibly take up and if they have three uses, he didn't feel that was a
big concern.
Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission
comments.
Mr. Smith stated for the record that there were letters distributed to the
commission from Mr. Clark, Mr. Pettingel, and Mr. Gregory of the Architectural
Review Commission.
Chairperson Beaty noted that at least one of the letters was received a week
ago. Mr. Smith indicated that Mr. Gregory's letter got buried in his in-tray.
Chairperson Beaty stated that it was difficult for the commission to come in
and read letters during the meeting.
Commissioner Ferguson said that he has spent more time on this project than
any other single project since he has been on the Planning Commission. He
felt that there were many more sides than three to this issue, some of which
were relevant, some of which were not. He noted that there had been
tremendous community concern expressed by Hidden Palms, Dennis Godecke
and The Grove. He believed that a traffic study was warranted. He felt it was
absolutely necessary. From a community that had nothing at the corner of
Deep Canyon and Highway 111 to all of a sudden get a major supermarket
anchor shopping center with a high intensity fuel station across the street from
it justifiably raised their concerns about a traffic study. He also felt it was
relevant that the property was zoned to attract this type of use. Land use
planning at a municipal level seeks to attract certain types of uses and this
was one of them. Many of the objections he heard to the proposed use, and
he agreed with Mr. Godecke that there was a third side from people that just
don't want the use for whatever reason. Notwithstanding that he saw some
meritorious arguments that were being raised in the process and he noted
through self-imposed conditions the developer did to try and work to alleviate
some of what they believed were relevant concerns. Crime and public safety
two were issues that were raised several times tonight. He noticed in the staff
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
.r
report that the preliminary review by the police department indicated there
would be no law enforcement problems associated with this use and he had
to defer to their expertise in this area. With respect to co-tenants, he doubted
that a Dairy Queen could locate there under any circumstance, but at the least
it would have to be a conditional use permit which comes back before the
Planning Commission and as far as he was concerned, the comments about
the intensity of the use had not gone unheeded. He was not sure a 2,500
square foot restaurant would ever get in there as well, but in any event it
would have to come back before the commission as a public hearing that
would require legal noticing. Based on all of that, he wanted to take up the
Architectural Review issue last because it was of paramount concern to him.
He agreed with Commissioner Jonathan and Commissioner Campbell that
Architectural Review has a certain expertise they can lend to matters of
architecture and he was willing to defer to that judgment, although not blindly.
He knew what was visually appealing to him and not, but nine times out of ten
he would defer to them. He had grave trouble with redesigning the site plan.
He felt that was within the purview of the Planning Commission and they
would take ARC's advice under advisement, but he had difficulty
understanding why a reverse footprint was fine, which would totally obstruct
that view, but this particular design presented serious problems to them and
he was willing to defer to them. He didn't think a canopy was a design
feature, but it had a functional purpose. There were elderly residents who
would not want to stand in the sun while they have fuel put into their car.
They didn't want to stand in the rain. He didn't necessarily want to have
attendants standing in the sun all day long, so from a site planning standpoint,
he liked the original site plan provided and he was more than willing to let ARC
work with the developer to redesign the canopy and mitigate its impacts, but
eliminating its pumps and cutting back the canopy he was not in favor of. He
stated that he was prepared to support staff's recommendation on this. As
far as the hours of use were concerned, he was prepared to support a 24-hour
operation subject to further review by this commission at a future time to
make sure there weren't problems. If there were problems, then they should
have the authority to reduce their hours of operation.
Commissioner Campbell stated that she concurred with Commissioner
Ferguson in regard to the Architectural Review. As far as the total redesign
of the canopy, as Mr. Bartlett stated before, it was the height of the building
presently and she didn't think everything had to look the same in Palm Desert.
They could have a special effect here for the entrance to Palm Desert. Also,
as far as the hours of operation, she concurred with Commissioner Ferguson.
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
She said that when she travels, her husband likes to drive at night when there
is no traffic, but they were always looking for a gas station and in smaller
towns there weren't gas stations available and they had to make preparation
because they would reach some point where there wasn't anything available
and she felt something should be available in Palm Desert. If the Lucky's
center was only open until midnight, she herself sometimes shops in the
evening at Ralph's which is open until 1 1 :00 p.m. and she felt that she had to
rush to get there. If a convenience store was needed, it should be there and
she didn't feel people went to a big Lucky's or market 24 hours a day, but a
person could run in and out of a convenience store. She was in favor of the
project and it being open 24 hours.
Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was in agreement with much that he
heard. He said he was sensitive to the concerns of the existing residents.
They are there and they would be impacted in some way by this development,
but he listened to the remarks carefully and the test in his mind was what
specific objections were there that addressed the specific use that was being
presented. What he heard were general concerns about increased traffic,
crime, aesthetics and so forth. Those were the types of comments and
'r concerns that would occur no matter what was developed there. That was
property on a highway. Mr. Nevins was not likely to build a park there. If it
was not going to be a gas station and convenience store, what were they
looking at? In all likelihood, it would be some other form of high intensity
usage. It might be a restaurant or something else. Reluctantly, while he was
concerned about the feelings of the surrounding residents, he couldn't see that
there were objections to the proposed use that would not exist for any
development of that land and he felt that land can and should be developed
and he was in favor of the application. He did have some problem with a 24-
hour operation. He felt 6:00 a.m. until midnight was reasonable. To deny a
six-hour usage he didn't feel was overbearing and it made a difference to the
surrounding residents, so he would favor the hours of operation as proposed
by staff. With regard to the design, he didn't want to see the applicant come
back to the Planning Commission, but he felt that something needed to be
worked out because he had a problem. In his experience on the commission,
when they approve a project they approve it as it is presented. Ultimately,
whether it was the design or whatever aspects begin at ARC, end at ARC, it
didn't matter because if people didn't like a project, he was the one that hears
about it. He hears about the color, the elevations, the site plan and people
didn't differentiate about that. People know he's on the Planning Commission
and they say, "How could you guys approve that?" or "We really like that."
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
They don't differentiate where it starts. He felt that if he was going to get the
heat or the credit, he wanted to have a hand in the process and not get into
differentiating whether it was architecture, whether the length is an aesthetic
issue or whether it was a design issue and he felt that needed to be addressed
at a later point and could be worked out. Because he was sensitive to the
time that the applicant has already spent, he was willing to let ARC work it out
and not have it come back to the commission.
Chairperson Beaty asked if the Planning Commission approved Desert Crossing
subject to ARC approval. He felt that architecture there was different. Mr.
Drell replied yes, they received conceptual approval. Commissioner Jonathan
noted that there were instances when the Planning Commission has addressed
architectural aspects and cited the Roberge project as a recent example. They
didn't like the elevations and changed them, they didn't like the flat wall and
changed it, there was a height issue that they changed. They do that. It was
something that didn't need to hold up this application, but should be resolved.
Chairperson Beaty said that he was torn on this issue. He was comfortable
with the traffic study and staff's interpretation of it. He asked if the applicant
was comfortable with the turn lane and asked if it was their financial
responsibility. Mr. Greenwood replied that it was the applicant's financial
responsibility. Chairperson Beaty clarified that the applicant agreed with all the
conditions except for the hours of operation. He said that he agreed with staff
and Commissioner Jonathan on the hours of operation. He didn't see a need,
if this was supposed to be a high end type operation, for 24 hours and if it
was necessary, perhaps the issue of no liquor sales could be addressed. Mr.
Greenwood indicated that Alcoholic Beverage Control prohibits alcohol sales
after 2:00 a.m. and he believed there might have been a specific condition for
ARCO. Chairperson Beaty thought that the condition on ARCO might have
limited them at midnight instead of 2:00 a.m. Mr. Drell stated that Planning
Commission could apply those conditions if they chose to. Chairperson Beaty
stated that he had faith in the Architectural Review Commission and he would
defer to them if the Planning Commission decided to accept the use. He didn't
have a problem and didn't want to see it back at the Planning Commission.
He stated that he didn't like the intensity of the use and didn't know if cutting
out an island would make a difference. That island would be the one in the
sun most of the day and people would not want to sit in their cars unless it
was covered. Chairperson Beaty said that they needed to resolve the hours
of use.
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
Commissioner Ferguson stated that he wanted to comment on two issues that
he heard. Going back to Architectural Review, he agreed that people go to the
Planning Commission regarding a project. He felt the code was a mess
because all they could do was say they didn't like it and they had no authority
to change it because on architectural matters they were purely advisory. He
said that might be something that could be addressed by the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance Review Committee. The second issue was the 24-hour use
and as a father of two young children, he has had to go out at 3:00 a.m. and
get cough syrup for his kids. He has out of necessity had to go out in the
middle hours of the night and out of necessity visit stores like this. He agreed
with Commissioner Campbell that you don't go to a market at 2:00 a.m. You
go to the closest place you can find. The one thing that this project has that
he had not seen anywhere and that he was really pleased to hear about was
that there would be attendants out on the island for every hour of operation
they are in operation. Chairperson Beaty said that he saw the applicant
shaking his head no, that was not what he said. Commissioner Ferguson said
that he asked if for every hour of operation there would be a full service island
attendant to see to it. Mr. Bartlett spoke from the audience and said that
there would not be an attendant there 24 hours. Commissioner Ferguson said
that for him, that added public safety item was what made the 24 hours of
operation acceptable. That there would be people on the actual premises 24
hours per day, not just locked up behind the counter. He said that he would
be willing to make a motion consistent with Commissioner Jonathan's
comments that they accept the staff report recommendation of approval.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-1 (Chairperson Beaty
voted no).
Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1772, approving CUP 96-18,
subject to conditions. Carried 3-1 (Chairperson Beaty voted no).
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
aj i
B. Case No. CUP 96-31 - MARCUS R. YARNS, Applicant
Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the
operation of an 850 square foot martial arts school located at 44-
850 Las Palmas, Suite B, in the R-3 residential district.
Mr. Alvarez stated that the applicant was requesting approval of a conditional
use permit to allow an 850 square foot martial arts school in an existing office
building located at 44-850 Las Palmas, Suite B. The subject suite was one of
seven located in a 5,000 square foot office building in the R-3 zone. Presently
this office building exists as a conditional use itself, which is why the
application was before the commission. This school would have a maximum
of 15 students and would operate after 5:00 p.m. on three weekdays and on
Saturday mornings. He noted that the site currently shares 21 parking spaces.
For office use, the site currently meets the parking requirement at four per
1 ,000 square feet of use. Because the school would be a private recreational
facility, the city's parking requirements were subject to one parking space per
every three students and one for each instructor. At a maximum of 15
students and one instructor the martial arts school would need six parking
spaces total. After using three of its allocated parking spaces, the school
would currently fall short three spaces. Staff conducted a parking survey as
shown in the staff report. Staff was on the site three weekdays specifically
Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday which were the expected peak hours of
parking usage. The survey showed that there was underutilized parking space
after 5:00 p.m. which was the normal closing business hour and thus there
was sufficient parking area to accommodate the three additional parking
spaces. Furthermore, the applicant stated that he received permission from
the property owner to use adjacent commercial parking lots to the north and
east, which was the same property owner. Staff recommended approval
subject to the conditions.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if during the time of the parking survey if the
building was fully leased. Mr. Alvarez stated that there was at least one space
out of the seven that was not leased besides the martial arts location.
Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. MARCUS YARNS, representing Eight Chambers of Shaolin School
of Kung Fu, said that Palm Desert was one of two schools in California.
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
low
Out of himself and his instructor, there were three other instructors on
the west coast of the United States authorized to teach this system by
the Grand Master, which was the ruling head of their system. They
offer self-defense. He felt there was no reason why anyone should be
afraid to walk outside at night. He said that when the Asians came
over from the west, there was a tabu or unwritten law, against teaching
martial arts to anyone not of Asian descent. Now there was what some
people called watered down martial arts where they teach enough
martial arts to keep the students coming in and interested, but if they
wanted to know martial arts truthfully, this way was morally wrong.
He had nothing against people that have their schools and use them to
pay their bills and help their families out, but he himself was currently
employed with the California Department of Corrections and he was a
Correctional Sergeant. His instructor was also a correctional officer and
his fiance was a correctional officer. He honestly didn't need the school
to make his living but he went to work every day and deals with felons,
rapists, robbers, burglars, and murderers and listened to them brag
about their crimes and how they would work out and when they get out
they will do their crimes again. The State right now was broke and
'r prisons were not being built any more and were overcrowded. People
didn't understand that down the road they would be let out a lot
sooner. Three strikes was a good law but it wouldn't work without
more prisons and they would be out sooner. Self defense was
something that everyone should know. Those that have families,
wives, and children, if you can't defend them, there was no reason to
walk outside the house. He thought that this true, authentic system
was what Palm Desert needs. He had nothing bad to say about the
other schools in the city, but an authentic system was what they all
needed.
Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Yarns had any questions or concerns about the
conditions of approval. Mr. Yarns said no.
Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION
to the proposal.
MS. RITA MARIA MEYER-SHMISH stated that she owns the property
at the corner of San Benito and San Gorgonio, which was just around
the corner from this building. She said that she looked upon this with
some trepidation if the commission did grant the conditional use permit.
23
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996 ,
She asked if the permit would specify that the use would operate only
evenings and Saturday morning. She asked what would happen if the
school became very popular and needs additional hours. The more
hours, the more people, the more problems with parking and that type
of thing. This building was built in an R-3 area and she felt that what
the applicant was asking for should be in a business district area. That
was her opinion. She said that if the commission did approve the use
and he operates there, she hoped he offered a class for senior citizens.
Chairperson Beaty stated that the staff report indicated that the hours of
operation would be 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and
Saturday morning. Mr. Alvarez stated that conditions four and five limit the
applicant to a maximum number of 15 students and after 5:00 p.m. weekdays
and weekends. Chairperson Beaty said that if the application is approved they
would wish him all the success in the world, but if he needed to expand, he
would have to come back and ask for that. If there was a problem, it could
be taken care of then.
MR. EARL MORLEY, owner of the building in which the applicant would
be a tenant and of the buildings immediately to the east and south,
stated that the space that the applicant would be in was 750 square
feet, so he didn't think more then 15 students could get in there. He
talked to all the tenants in their buildings surrounding him and they all
end at 5:00 p.m. There was one other person that started at 5:00
p.m., but he moved out and that was the one vacancy mentioned
earlier. All the other spaces that have parking, the parking would be
available for Mr. Yarns and his students after 5:00 p.m.
Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission
comments or action.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0.
Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1773, approving CUP 96-31 ,
subject to conditions. Carried 4-0.
24
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
um
C. Case No. CUP 96-30 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact and conditional use permit for approval to construct and
operate a 19.5 acre public soccer facility/ community park on
Hovley Lane East, approximately 250 west of Corporate Way in
the Open Space zone, also known as APN 624-040-026.
Mr. Winklepleck gave a brief history of the project. He explained that staff has
been working on this for 11 months. The need for the project came about
because of the extreme amount of use on the current facilities. There are nine
baseball fields and five soccer fields in the city and of those there are four
stand alone baseball fields and no stand alone soccer fields. This combined
field concept worked until about five years ago when the number of kids grew
and subsequently with that much use and no down time for field maintenance,
they've become quite run down. As an example, he explained that the last
season for the Palm Desert Youth Soccer League, who is the primary provider
for youth soccer in Palm Desert, has approximately 1200 children registered
which equals about 85 teams. Youth baseball for their last season had about
1300 children and 100 teams. Out of that total enrollment of 2500 children,
there were about 50% of those children playing both baseball and soccer. He
said that this site was selected primarily because of its central location, the
Open Space zoning, and the fact that the city owns it. The 20-acre site was
dedicated to the city in September of 1988 by Cook Hovley Street Associates
which has approval of a 612-unit apartment complex which is west of this
site. The land maintained its open space designation when it was given to the
city with the specific intention of being developed as a park to serve the
community. Subsequent to that there was half an acre taken from CVWD for
a well site. The other major consideration for site selection was impact on the
surrounding communities, primarily residential. The site was not directly
adjacent to any existing residential units, but it abutted a portion of the Portola
Country Club RV storage lot. He said that the idea was presented to the city
before the Parks and Recreation Commission by Sabby Jonathan in January
1996. They liked the idea and approved the concept of the soccer facility and
included it in the 1996/97 Parks and Recreation budget and capital
improvement program. Staff was then directed to search out and find a
qualified consultant for preliminary design and cost estimates. There was
quite a selection process which included a Request for Qualifications,
subsequent interviews and the hiring of T.I. Maloney. He noted that Mr. Tim
Maloney was in the audience. He said that Mr. Maloney has worked on more
25
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
fte
than 70 recreational facilities in the Southern California area, many of which
included soccer. When they took the idea before City Council for hiring T.I.
Maloney, the council directed staff to meet with representatives from the
surrounding residential communities. He said that they met with Portola
Country Club, Silver Sands Racquet Club, Chaparral Country Club, as well as
informing Marriott Desert Springs of the city's intent and met with them on a
personal basis. The first meeting they held was in June and representatives
from each of the communities were in attendance. The project received a
fairly positive response overall. There were basically four major concerns that
anyone had for a project of this type which included security, traffic, lights and
noise. A working committee was formed which included a member of each
of those communities and they did this in order to continue the process and
they wanted to work through the summer and in fact held off from bringing
this project to the Planning Commission with the specific intent of working
with that committee and have them relay the information back to their
homeowners. That way they were kept informed and the process was not
"shoved down their throats" while they were gone during the summer. He
said they had representatives from each of those committees except Silver
Sands and they were informed of the meetings, although no one attended. In
the previous meetings they indicated that they didn't have a problem with this ..r
site as it is not very close to their project. Chaparral Country Club's
representative Mr. Dick Grundy was able to attend a majority of the meetings
and their only concern was the traffic at Portola and Hovley, which currently
has a three-way stop. As far as the lights, noise and security, those were of
a lesser concern as the project was about half a mile away from the closest
residential house in Chaparral. He met with Marriott and they indicated no
opposition to the project. Their main concern was that the lights would be out
by 10:00 p.m. and that whatever the heights of the standards were, that they
would not negatively affect the view of the mountains to the south. Mr.
Winklepleck said a Marriott representative was going to go out and walk the
site and he was informed of some of the possible standard heights, but Mr.
Winklepleck had not heard back from him. As noted earlier, Portola Country
Club was the closest residential community. Staff wanted to see what their
major concerns were, what they would like to see in the facility, and if there
was anything they would like added so that they could utilize it. To keep
making sure that the homeowners were appraised on what was going on, an
article describing the project appeared in their homeowners association
newsletter which is distributed to all property owners and residents. A
conceptual plan was presented before the Portola Country Club Homeowners
Association Board in September and again before a general meeting in
26
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
October. The October meeting was attended by about 70 residents. Once
again, the response was positive with the main concern still being lights, noise
and security. They didn't see a problem with traffic since all of the parking
would come in off of Hovley. The association formed a committee to collect
suggestions and concerns from the residents and presented those to the city.
At the time of the writing of the staff report, staff had not yet received any
responses. Subsequently, staff met with representatives from Portola Country
Club (Mr. Bud Kirby and Mr. Alan Moore). They met with them yesterday and
the information distributed to the commission tonight included additional
conditions and a recommendation from that committee. Mr. Winklepleck
stated that the project was on 19.5 acres and the project would include five
full-size regulation soccer fields, an approximately 263-space parking lot, a
concession building with restroom facilities, picnic pavilions, a tot lot, and a
perimeter jogging path which was security accessible for fire, police and other
security that might need to access that area. There were also other ancillary
facilities. The Portola Country Club Association indicated that they would like
to see some horseshoe pits and some shuffleboard courts. They intended to
add those in as well. On the southern most field, which was the only field
running east to west, the closest point of that at the southwest corner was
�.. approximately 180 feet from the closest residential unit. The precise layout
of the picnic pavilions and the tot lot area had not been decided. In the staff
report he said that it depended upon further input from the surrounding
residential areas. Now that was received, they could go ahead and do the
next phase and be specific as to which uses would be located where.
However, all of the uses that were indicated would be located on the east side
of the property furthest away from the residential area as possible. That way
any noise or other uses like food smells from barbequing were far enough
away from residential areas that they would not impact them. The original
concept showed some picnic pavilions on the southwest corner. Portola
Country Club indicated that they didn't want those there. The plan before
commission showed that they were removed. Mr. Winklepleck stated that
lighting has been a concern, and one of staff's major concerns as well. There
was a distinct need for soccer by PDYSL and other adult leagues and teams.
There was a need for lights out there, primarily during the winter season.
During the summer it was not as critical because the sun didn't set until 8:00
p.m., but in the winder it gets dark between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. and
there was a need for lighting. He said that it was the city's intent to use the
same types of fixtures as those used in the Civic Center ballfield, which were
very directional and keep the light on the field without having trespass past the
fto fields or past the property. They have been working with Dream Engineering,
27
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
who was the lighting consultant for the Civic Center. He said that the plans
on display showed 50, 60 and 70 foot standards. In the packet he included
a breakdown of Dream Engineering's lighting study showing that they did a
study on 50, 60 and 70 foot standards. He said that the 70 standards were
the standards that would, if there were no objections to lighting, be the best
case scenario. The 60 foot standards would be acceptable from both sides.
The 50 foot standards as indicated by Dream Engineering, would be
unacceptable by soccer and would be further impacting on residential
properties because of the way the light comes off of the fixtures and would
be more of a horizontal light and would add to any trespass lighting. They
were trying to balance between the height of the standards and the usability
of the fields. That was something that they were still working on. As far as
the timing of the lights, that has always been a major concern of residents.
One, the facility's lights would only be on during scheduled practice or
competition. They were proposing that the southernmost field's lights will be
off no later than 9:00 p.m. and the remaining four fields' lights would be off
no later than 9:30 p.m. Parking lot lighting would be off at 10:00 p.m.; half
an hour would be sufficient time for folks to leave the fields and get into their
cars to head home. The reason for the lights being off at 10:00 p.m. in the
parking lot was that the facility would be closed at 10:00 p.m. and they didn't
want anyone hanging around there after 10:00 p.m. One of the other major
concerns was noise. Staff was aware of the surrounding residents' concern
about increased noise because of the project. He said that they put the more
intense uses like the concession area furthest away from the residential
properties as possible. In addition, they would be using some walls and
landscaping around the south and west perimeter of the site. They did have
an acoustical study from Gordon Bricken indicating that without any walls
being put up, the proposed facility would create a noise level of approximately
60 decibels and that intermittent noise was hard to gage. Most noises come
from one spot like the well site that creates a constant noise. One of the
mitigating measures that was indicated by the noise consultant was a five-foot
wall which would bring the noise level into compliance, whereas an eight-foot
wall would bring the noise level below compliance by at least five decibels.
Staff was proposing an eight-foot wall on the entire southern perimeter of the
facility with the exception of the emergency access gate which would be on
the eastern side and they were proposing to take the eight-foot wall along the
western property line for a distance of approximately 50 feet. According to
the noise consultant, that would take care of any noise problem. There would
be increased noise and during the daytime there would be very little use except
on the weekends and as indicated, with the lighting being out at 9:00 p.m. in
r
28
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
the southern field, and 9:30 p.m. on the remainder of the field and that would
hopefully satisfy the residential neighbors and there would be silence after
9:30 p.m. Access and traffic has not been a major concern of Portola Country
Club. As mentioned earlier, it was mentioned by Chaparral as a concern.
Staff completed a traffic analysis and they looked at existing and anticipated
conditions with regards to traffic and parking at the facility. They wanted to
make sure there was ample parking onsite for any tournaments that would
occur. With the worst likely case as indicated in Mr. Greenwood's report, the
system (primarily Hovley Lane and what it connects to--Portola and Cook
Street) could easily handle the capacity that this project would create and
parking would also handle any parking demand that the project would create.
As a side note to that, the intersection of Portola and Hovley was a three-way
stop now. Within the next two years there would be a signal installed there.
That would also help address any traffic concerns. The site now serves as a
retention basis for a portion of the industrial area. The site would have to
maintain that retention area as well as handling on-site drainage. The current
plan would have the two middle fields depressed ten feet from the average
grade, although that might change as warranted. Those two would remain
and they may depress the two northern fields as well. With the fields being
depressed and with the concern about lights and height of standards, the
depressed fields would help in that they could have a taller standard but it
would be perceived to be ten feet shorter because of the grade. The facility
is intended primarily to serve the use of Palm Desert via the Palm Desert Youth
Soccer League. The secondary use, which would be small, would be for adult
soccer leagues, club soccer and other scheduled soccer events. The project
would also serve the general community as a soccer facility and community
park. They would like to see people out there during the day jogging,
rollerblading or walking their dog. As far as soccer, the majority of use occurs
in the evening on weekdays with a very small amount of use Monday through
Friday during the daytime. As far as facility rules and security, the proposed
project is a public facility, therefore all public park rules would be in effect
including no alcohol, no amplified music and no public address system. The
perimeter path is designed for security vehicles as well as emergency vehicles
and as needed, a patrol would be sent out, whether that was the sheriff's
department or during the day from Parks and Recreation. Ample patrol would
be provided as the city wants this to be a family oriented site and they plan to
do anything it takes to make sure it remains that way. He said that the site
was 19.5 acres, total building area was estimated at 5,000 square feet and
would come along in the next phase, height was proposed to be 24 feet
`ow maximum (and would probably be much lower in height), and parking was
29
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
t
i
approximately 263 spaces. The proposed facility and architecture would be
compatible with existing developments in the area and would comply with all
zoning and design standards. In addition, to help ensure continued cooperation
between the city and the residents, staff was recommending that a standing
committee be formed with representatives from each of the surrounding
communities as well as Palm Desert Youth Soccer League, Coachella Valley
Recreation and Park District who would ultimately do the reserving and
maintenance of the facility, and the City. The committee would be used as an
intermediary committee so that if problems do arise, they would meet to talk
about possible solutions and implement those solutions without having to bring
it back to Planning Commission. If they couldn't come to some agreement at
that level, then they would bring it to Planning Commission. As far as a staff
recommendation, he was hoping to recommend approval, but at this point he
would be recommending that the case be continued. He felt that the majority
of the items had been taken care of as far as noise, blow sand and the
majority of needs from Portola Country Club. He said that the continuance
was to allow them to wrap up the specifics on what the lighting would look
like, the height of the standards and to show those items to Portola Country
Club prior to bringing it back and getting their input at that point.
Mr. Drell added that the commission could conceptually make indications on
all the relative issues, take testimony and in essence isolate any additional
issues which they feel need resolution. Staff felt that the lighting was still
important and they would like to take it to the Palm Desert Parks and
Recreation Commission next Wednesday. They were looking at a difference
between the light standard heights and whether the tradeoffs relative to the
quality of lighting for the players and the light trespass versus having them
higher in the air. He felt that was something that the Parks and Recreation
Commission should make a recommendation on and how far they might want
to sink additional fields to achieve those results. He noted that they just
received the information on the lighting study yesterday.
Chairperson Beaty asked if this project bordered right up to the Dialysis Center
since there was a big hole in the ground there. Mr. Winklepleck explained that
was the retention basin and this bordered right up to the industrial property on
the west side of Corporate Way. Chairperson Beaty noted that periodically
there was water there. Mr. Winklepleck indicated that the water came from
drains in the industrial area and there were some ways to deal with that and
that would be left up to Public Works to help handle it in the best way. Mr.
30
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
■.r
Drell indicated that at least two fields would be in that hole, and maybe four
of them, and then there would be dry wells to handle most of that water.
Commissioner Campbell asked if this facility would generate any revenue for
the city. Mr. Winklepleck replied no, that this was not intended to generate
revenue. The concession facility would be run by Palm Desert Youth Soccer.
He stated that philosophically, the city needed to provide park areas and we
know it is needed and a couple of council members that sit on the Parks and
Recreation Commission understood the need for the fields. He said that
hopefully the city's golf course would generate revenue to help provide more
facilities like this.
Commissioner Ferguson noted that the commission received written comments
that evening from Portola Country Club. Mr. Winklepleck concurred and said
that it was from their meeting yesterday. Commissioner Ferguson asked if
most of the items would be worked out with them prior to returning to the
commission. Mr. Winklepleck agreed and indicated that the majority of them
had already been worked out, with the exception of the lighting. Staff spoke
to them about the difference between an eight and ten foot wall and the costs
and whether the acoustical study would show much difference or if they could
achieve what they needed to with an eight-foot wall. He said that there were
representatives from Portola Country Club present and they could expand upon
that.
Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to
address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal.
MR. ALAN MOORE, the President of the Portola Country Club
Homeowners Association, stated that he wanted to compliment staff
on how well they have worked with them on this matter. The last time
he was here was on the Odekirk project and they had no support in their
park for that project and most of the associations around them didn't
either and the council chamber was very crowded. This was an
altogether different concept and they have received no serious
objections in their park. They have almost 500 resident homes. There
were some minor objections and he felt that those had been answered.
They went over it with the staff yesterday, with Mr. Winklepleck and
Mr. Drell, and they clarified everything that they wanted to put in
regarding conditions of use. He wanted to be sure that when the
r..
facility was going in and when it was open that they come back
31
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
because sometimes people forget or things change and they wanted to
be sure the conditions were followed and they were assured that this
would happen. He asked for clarification since they recommended that
the concession building should only be open during supervised events.
Mr. Winklepleck said that wasn't a condition, but that was how these facilities
typically worked. He has been out to the Civic Center Park facility many times
during the day and when there were practices during the evening, whether for
soccer or baseball, and the concession stand was only open during games or
tournaments.
Mr. Moore said he was unclear about the wall on the south end and if
it would go clear across the width of the facility.
Mr. Winklepleck said they were proposing to have it all the way across the
south end with the exception of the one eastern portion that they needed for
the emergency vehicle access. They were proposing an eight-foot wall
because of the noise study and he would be glad to go over that with him if
he wanted to see it. Some of these studies were received late and these
issues could be clarified now that they had them.
Mr. Moore indicated that they did form a committee and they would
keep it going and it was called their Soccer Field Liaison Committee
because they want to keep their residents happy. The chairman of the
committee is the past director, Mr. Bud Kirby. He said that he would
like him to say a few words to the commission also.
MR. BUD KIRBY spoke from the audience and said that he didn't have
anything to add.
MR. DARYL DAVIDSON, a resident and Board of Directors Member of
Chaparral, stated that he wanted to compliment the way this group has
worked to gain what it has gained so far. There had been several
meetings with Phil Drell, Sabby Jonathan and Jeff Winklepleck and
everything they said they would do they have done. He said that they
had the total support of Chaparral and he had been asked to stick
around until the project was completed. He asked that the city keep
them in the loop, but if the city could make Portola Country Club happy,
they were happy. He thanked them for the way they supported the
project and for involving them.
32
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
MR. CHRIS BASH, a resident of Palm Desert, stated that he was also
an Executive Board Member of the Palm Desert Youth Baseball and he
happened to be here for the gas station issue. He felt that having this
facility put in would greatly help baseball due to the fact that there was
no down time on their fields. He did fields and maintenance for four
years and it was like having a third job because soccer was using it.
They had donations to reseed and fix sprinklers, but there was no down
time. The Civic Center was nice and green because they could close it
and there was down time. At Cook Street they didn't have that
opportunity and that was where soccer was played in years past. He
said that it looked like a great project and was something that they have
needed for a while. The more they could get away from Cook Street,
the better. He said that they need to get to city property because they
were having far too many problems there. It was great having the Civic
Center, but he hoped that there could be six more baseball fields
somewhere else that the city would be in control of because it was
getting out of hand at Cook Street. He felt that it was because of who
had control and who could do exactly what and it was a tug of war.
This facility would eliminate half the problem and hopefully more
property could be obtained to build more baseball fields. He said that
baseball was definitely in favor of this project. As far as the lights for
the people in the surrounding communities, the Civic Center lighting
was excellent and they lose players when they go to chase balls in the
out field because it was pitch black out there. He felt the MUSCO
lighting out there was excellent. For baseball, the concessions were
only open for games only, not practice.
MR. VAN TANNER, a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission
said that he was very involved in the youth sports in the valley and has
been for the last ten years. He said that he worked with Sabby
Jonathan, Jeff Winklepleck and Phil Drell in getting this concept brought
together and there was a tremendous cooperative effort between
Portola Country Club, Chaparral and the City and its youth directors. He
said that he was a little disappointed that they would be postponed, but
patience was a virtue and they knew from the past that they have to be
patient for good things to happen. He said that he was glad to hear the
support they were getting from Portola and Chaparral and he looked
forward to this project coming to fruition because it was something that
they desperately needed. He said that if they looked at Cook Street,
they would know why. He indicated that he and Sabby Jonathan were
33
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
�.i
participants in some club programs here and they had to go to Lincoln
School to get a conditional use permit through Desert Sands Unified
School District to play their soccer games there. The fields at the Civic
Center were not conducive to the high level of play that is demanded
through clubs and the Cook Street facility was not large enough any
more to do it because they had chopped it way down. They took fields
away from them so it was something that they desperately needed and
he was looking forward to it. He said that he only had about five years
left of club play soccer, but he planned to stay as active as he possibly
could. If he was invited to be on this commission, he certainly would
because he wanted to see it happen. He encouraged the Planning
Commission, when it came time, to pass this concept and go forward
and get this moving. He assured the commission that the Parks and
Recreation Commission was in favor of this concept and would work
closely with the City and the Planning Department to make this happen.
Chairperson Beaty stated that it was refreshing to see the cooperation from
one who also sat here with Commissioner Jonathan when the Odekirk proposal
came before them and one who sat here when they didn't even have Cook
Street, but they still had 600 kids and they did the maintenance and they built
them mostly themselves. He understood the need and liked the cooperation.
He asked for action regarding the continuance or comments from the
commission.
Commissioner Jonathan said that this soccer complex was a dream of more
than 1 ,000 families for quite a number of years and he wanted to publicly
thank the City Council. When he approached them informally to "test the
waters" he thought he might get a lot of resistance and he had a lot of plans
and arguments of how he could convince them that this was needed and
appropriate and all he got were words of encouragement and the green light
with the proviso that they work with the residents very carefully to make sure
that they were good neighbors. As the process unfolded they received
tremendous cooperation from Jeff Winklepleck and the rest of the staff, and
they were very appreciative of that help. When they got to the residents, he
felt it was a real showcase of what sincere people could do when they work
together. He commended the residents of Portola Country Club and Chaparral.
Any concerns that were voiced were very reasonable and he thought they
were always open to the proposed solutions and the alternatives. There were
no set minds against things and it was a pleasant experience. He thanked
everyone for that. He stated that one of the things they did was they did not
34
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
design the project and then go to the residents. It was a cooperative process
from the very beginning and the park was delayed for a year because they
didn't want to move forward during the summer when the residents were not
here, so they swallowed that year and said that was okay, it would be worth
it. In that regard, he suggested and requested it as a favor that they avoid a
postponement and as a commission trust staff to continue to work with all the
parties, which he felt that had been proven, and to just direct staff to resolve
the remaining issue, which was just the lighting. If there were no conflict or
arguments, they could set an upper limit that said that the standards
themselves wouldn't exceed 70 feet or 60 feet above grade and let the staff
and the parties involved work out the details. The reason he wanted to ask
for that was because this was scheduled to be before the City Council at their
December meeting for funding and he really wanted to move forward with
construction so that they could have the fields available for the next soccer
season. He believed that would be 1998. Further delay would jeopardize that.
That was his one request. He asked if there were any objections from any of
the parties.
Mr. Bud Kirby spoke from the audience and asked for clarification.
Mr. Drell said that the issue came down to the overall height of the standards
being 60 feet (70 feet with 10 below grade) or 50 feet, whereby they would
be sacrificing playability and increasing trespass light. That was an issue that
affects both the impacts on Portola plus the quality of the facility. The city
had their own decision to make and Mr. Jonathan was suggesting that if they
set the upper limit at 60 feet, a potential solution would be to close the public
hearing, adopt the resolution of approval with these conditional conditions with
the understanding that they would continue to work on this. He said that the
60 feet could ultimately be 50 feet, so it would be no higher than 60 feet.
They might make the decision for their own purposes that they didn't want to
see that extra ten feet of tower in the air, but under no case would that light
on the southern field be more than 60 feet. He said that this could always be
scheduled at the next meeting to discuss this. He noted that the next Planning
Commission meeting would be before the next City Council meeting. The next
City Council meeting would be on the 12th and the next Planning Commission
meeting was on December 3. He said that staff would assume that this
project would receive approval, either at this meeting or the next meeting, and
the only issue was if the commission wanted to see the standard height before
approving it, and the actual final recommendation of the Parks and Recreation
Commission relative to the tradeoff would be next week and the final input
35
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
from the Portola Country Club Homeowners Association relative to the
tradeoffs in the lighting.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that he felt that Mr. Winklepleck has put a lot
of work into this and has laid a careful foundation, with Sabby Jonathan in
putting this together and he was tremendously impressed with the project and
he wanted to see the Parks and Recreation Commission review the lighting
issue. He read three different places in the staff report where the information
was not yet available, which was now available, and given the amount of work
that went into it he didn't want to prematurely approve it unless there was a
reason to and he wanted to see everyone sit down and work out the lighting
issue, the height of the wall issue and bring closure to everything before giving
approval, unless it jeopardized funding.
Mr. Drell stated that staff would schedule this for the December 12 City
Council meeting. The two issues that were somewhat outstanding were the
height of the standards on that last field, although in their discussion on
Monday, seeing that one light on the southern field faces completely away
from them, it would therefore have no impact on them from a lighting point of
view and the higher they are, the less trespass that would occur, but they .�
would see it. Even for them there was a tradeoff. Staff had that same
concern. The commission could vote on an action, perhaps a minute motion,
which would in essence approve the project except for the height of the wall
(eight or ten feet) and if Portola Country Club, after seeing the information still
wants ten feet, ten feet is what they would provide. If that gave them
additional comfort, then staff would go along with that. The City has their
own concerns relative to the physical height of those towers, even if they
didn't have lights on them given what they went through with the
telecommunications ordinance towers. He said that the commission could act
and approve everything except for these two issues which would be resolved
at the next meeting.
Commissioner Ferguson asked if he understood Mr. Winklepleck to say that
the City Manager requested that this item be continued. Mr. Winklepleck
stated that Mr. Drell spoke to the City Manager and that was where the city
concerns came from--whether or not we want to see the lights 60 feet or 50
feet. Mr. Drell indicated that at one point in time the city gave up on having
any more lit fields in the city, unless they were built right at the railroad tracks.
They got this ball rolling again with the assertion that we could develop soccer
fields with significantly lower lights than was needed for softball and the
36
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
softball lights were 70 and 80 feet and grade relative to Monterey Country
Club might be 90 or 100 feet. The goal was to get these as low as possible.
Therefore, they felt that 60 feet was getting closer to 80 feet and 50 feet was
significantly less, but there was a tradeoff. That was what they wanted to
resolve and he thought the City Council members were looking for lower lights
as well.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that what he would like to see from Parks and
Recreation, and if he understood the report accurately, 70 feet provided a
factor of 10, 60 feet provided a factor of six which they said was marginally
acceptable, and if this was not going to be appealed to the City Council, which
he didn't think it would, then most of them would rather give final approval
after hearing from the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Commissioner Jonathan said that was fine with him as long as they were not
postponing the approval at the City Council level, and it sounded like they
wouldn't be. He asked when the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting
would be. Mr. Drell replied that they meet next Wednesday. Mr. Tanner
spoke from the audience and asked if there would be a meeting. Mr.
%1W Winklepleck indicated there would be and that this might be the only agenda
item for Wednesday's meeting. Mr. Tanner said that they would entertain
Portola Country Club concerns at that meeting also. Mr. Drell concurred that
Portola Country Club was welcome to attend that meeting. Mr. Kirby said that
he would be there.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
continuing CUP 96-30 to December 3, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 4-0.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
None.
X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE
None.
37
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
.r
XI. COMMENTS
Commissioner Jonathan suggested that the best approach to the ARC/Planning
Commission relationship was to ask staff to study the issue and come back to
the commission to a meeting within the next two months and put it on the
agenda at that time for general discussion. Mr. Drell said that they have the
Zoning Ordinance Review Committee which has a member of the Architectural
Commission, Planning Commission, City Council as well as some members of
the general public. He said they were now finishing up on a recommendation
on the new Freeway Commercial Zone and he said that perhaps they could
address this problem. Commissioner Jonathan said that he didn't want this
issue decided by that committee before they have the opportunity to discuss
it. Mr. Drell explained that they didn't decide anything, they make
recommendations through the normal process. Commissioner Jonathan said
that would work for him.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that his review of those ordinances indicated
that the jurisdiction is a mess and they could fairly reasonably read into the
Architectural Review Ordinance that they have authority to change site plans.
He felt that they could reasonably read into the Planning Commission Will
Ordinance that they have the authority to make architectural decisions because
they were so broadly written. He said that he didn't know if there was a
power struggle at one time, but for the developers having to go back and
forth, it was a mess. Commissioner Ferguson said that to be frank, he felt
that Architectural Review did this applicant a big favor because they made a
final ruling in August and technically didn't have to reconsider it on the
Planning Commission's recommendation and their appeal period had expired,
which took the developer by surprise when that was pointed out to him. In
fairness to the developer, the ARC and the Planning Commission, the matter
should be clarified.
38
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson,
adjourning the meeting to December 3, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 4-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:31 p.m.
PH LIP DREL Secretary �-
ATTEST:
1'11,4, Q -
PAUL R. BEATY, Chairpe son
Palm Desert Planning Commission
Now /tm
39