Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0318 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - MARCH 18, 1997 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE �. � � � * * � � * � * � � � * � * � � � � � � � * � * � � * � � * � 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ferguson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of ailegiance. r lll. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Ferguson, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sonia Campbell Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: George Fernandez Staff Present: Phil Drell Mark Greenwood Sandy Jacobson Tonya Monroe �. Steve Smith IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the March 4, 1997 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the March 4, 1997 minutes. Carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent March 13, 1997 council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � � , VII. CONSENT CALENDAR � A. Case No. PMW 97-1 - BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, L.P., AND DHJ DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment to accommodate the units built on the lots. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. DA 97-2 - MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Agreement for 270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street. Mr. Smith explained that the development agreement proposal by Mainiero, ,,,,,,,� Smith & Associates on behalf of the David Freedman Company was before the commission. The staff report before commission, while dated today, was prepared tasf week as is staff's normal custom. In the interim, there were significant changes done to the agreement, which the commission received copies of this evening. The report that was distributed in the packets noted . staff concerns relative to the freezing of the art fee and freezing of the development exactions over the term of the agreement. As well, the Public Works Department suggested some change to the language as did the Public Art Manager. Staff received this afternoon revisions which implement those changes. The applicant is no longer seeking freezing of the art fee, nor the development exactions throughout the term of the agreement. They added in the verbiage "to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and as prescribed by the Public Art Manager". With those changes, staff was prepared to recommend approval. Staff circulated to commission a draft resolution which the revised development agreement would be attached to. He noted that in the first paragraph the words "development plan" should be amended to read "development agreement". The commission's action would be a recommendation to the City Council. Council, if they saw fit to approve the document, would adopt it by ordinance. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that area PA1 would be a � restaurant park, but at this time the project was only a gas station/ > � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � convenience store and car wash and the timing on the other uses becoming real is unknown. She thought they were approving the whole project, not just those three. Mr. Smith explained that the commission approved the development plan as it applied to planning area one, which did include a wide array of uses ranging from the service station, car wash, convenience store, the restaurant park, the R.V. storage facility, the mini warehouse and the retail area. At this time they only have actual plans on the 1 .6 acre site at the corner, which is the service station, the car wash and the convenience store. The rest is likely to be coming along shortly, but the City did not have it at this time. Commissioner Campbell asked if it could be two or three years down the . road before something else is developed there. Mr. Smith concurred that it could be some time. � Chairperson Ferguson noted that this was a continued public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MARVIN ROOS, Director of Planning Services for Mainiero, Smith and Associates, 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon in Palm Springs, stated that he was representing the David Freedman Company. He said they are in support of the revised staff recommendation and resolution. They had been working hard to eliminate points of conflict with the various '� points that were brought up, including the public art issues, public works issues and the fee issue. He felt the City had been very reasonable with fees over the years and they were hoping not to see any major increases as a result of Prop. 218 or other kinds of issues, but they were willing to work with the City on that. They were working hard in a number of areas and he thought the commission would be seeing more things happening here, sooner rather than later, both in the food park area as well as in planning area one which was very active right now in negotiations. He didn't think they would be waiting three years to see things happen. Relative to public art, they would be meeting with the Public Arts Commission to go over a program to start the whole public art entry statement. He said it could be a very unusual entry into the community and he felt it would be a nice centerpiece. He tt�anked staff for their efforts in working with them to get these details ironed out. He asked if there were any questions. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Ferguson stated for the record that he was recusing � himself on this matter and would not be participating in discussions as previously set forth. �rw� 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � � Commissioner Beaty said that he was a little concerned that the commission "� was being asked to act on a document which was faxed to the City at 4:00 p.m. today and several commissioners were in meetings until 5:30 p.m. He was not comfortable passing judgement on it. He asked for comments by staff. Mr. Drell said that it was now a simple document that just says that the zoning they are requesting over the term of the agreement the City agrees not to change. That was essentially what it said. Commissioner Beaty noted that it came from Best, Best & Krieger and asked if the City Attorney had reviewed it and asked if it said what the commission was being led to believe it said. Ms. Jacobson concurred. Commissioner Jonathan stated that if he could abstain, that wouldn't postpone the project because there were still two commissioners that could vote in favor. He shared the concerns expressed by Commissioner Beaty and he didn't fault staff and understood that there were a lot of last minute negotiations that took place, but he had a hard enough time feeling qualified to make a vote on a development agreement which is complicated and that task was made much more difficult by having it handed to him the minute he gets here, along with various other documents, resolutions, and so forth prepared by staff. He trusted staff, but before he could vote either way, he would want to read the documents and understand them. He was not � prepared to do that so he intended to abstain. ,� Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Jonathan and she didn't feel they had enough time to read the agreement and she would move for a continuance. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the applicant had any �esponse to that motion. There was none. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing DA 97-2 to April 1 , 1997 by minute motion. Carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Ferguson abstained). Commissioner Beaty asked about the public hearing being closed. Chairperson Ferguson stated that it would have to be reopened at the next meeting. B. Case No. CUP 97-4 - FRANK OU, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow an 1 190 square foot restaurant in the C-1 general commercial zone on the north side of Highway 1 1 1 , 125 feet east of San Luis Rey known as 73-850 Highway 1 1 1 . 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � Mr. Smith indicated that the restaurant was being proposed in the Metsovas center on the north side of Highway 1 1 1 between Portola and San Luis Rey. It was the building east of Chief Auto and 7-11 . He noted that in June of 1994 the commission approved in the westerly building Fiesta Mexicana Restaurant and in January of 1996 Commission approved Chesapeake Bagel Bakery. He said the building has a total of 9701 square feet and the applicant is seeking to establish another restaurant, Atlantic Fish & Chips. Mr. Smith indicated that the business would operate seven days a week from 1 1 :00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. serving lunch and dinner. They were not seeking approval for the sale of beer and wine and/or alcohol. He said they would like seven tables . with four chairs for total seating for 28. The applicant currently operates a fish and chips business in Indio and he indicated that his expectation was that his meals would be broken out to about 50% for lunch and 50% for dinner or perhaps as high as 60% for lunch. Typically in the conditional use process, the issue came down to whether or not there was enough parking to support another restaurant. As shown in the staff report, a limited survey was conducted over the past four days, two or three times during the lunch hour. Mr. Smith noted that this project was developed in conjunction with a similar building immediately to the east which has a SubKing restaurant as well as a mix of other commercial uses. The parking lots have approximately 87 parking spaces, and 51 on the street. This was confirmed when staff conducted w�. surveys in January of 1996 and the numbers were fairly consistent that in the west lot there were 17 vacancies out of 33; in the east lot there was an average of 20 vacancies out of 54 and on the street there was an average vacancy rate of 36 spaces out of 51 . Today he went out again and the vacant spaces were a little higher at 19, 30 and 37 respectively and that was at 1 :15 p.m. Mr. Smith noted that for purposes of CEQA this is a Class 3 categoricat exemption. Staff felt that with the amount of vacant spaces out there that the center could support another restaurant. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. Commissioner Campbell noted that one of the conditions of approval said that the restaurant hours would be from 10:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m., yet the applicant was requesting 1 1 :00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. Mr. Smith said that they didn't want to have to come back to change the conditions if the applicant wanted to open a half hour early or stay open a half hour later, so staff gave him a little leeway. Chairperson Ferguson noted in the definition section of the Zoning Ordinance there wasn't a definition for "center". Mr. Smith agreed. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he spoke with the Mr. Drell today and it seemed this application could have been analyzed two ways depending on how a center was defined and the consequences were somewhat significant. He said that � it might be something that could be addressed by the Zoning Ordinance 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 .� Review Committee, but there seemed to be more than a little ambiguity in what a shopping center is. Mr. Smith agreed, but indicated that the TUMF ordinance defined center and this center meets that criteria. That was a separate document. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was because of the common driveway and shared parking lot; Mr. Smith concurred and said it was also because of its size. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing. He noted that when a public hearing is conducted, the applicant was invited to speak first, then all of those in favor of that application, then those opposed to that application, and last _ the applicant was given a brief rebuttal period to address the opposition. He asked the applicant to address the commission if he or she chose to do so. There was no response. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the applicant was present. There was no response. He asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR. Someone from the audience called out that the applicant fixes great fish. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Ferguson asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell indicated that she was in the center at 1 :15 p.m. today also and there were enough available parking spaces. She didn't feel this restaurant would cause any problems and was in favor of the project. Commissioner Beaty stated that he had no problems with the application. Commissioner Jonathan noted that normally when the applicant was not present he has a problem with that, but he believed that the property owner was present and chose not to speak. He assumed that the applicant was indirectly represented. He said that he didn't have a problem and concurred with staff's interpretation that the two centers could be viewed as one. He cautioned staff as the commission was cautioned in the staff report that they were now approaching the threshold and future additional restaurant usage would be dubious in his mind. Chairperson Ferguson noted they were at 23.5% of the combined centers and 25% was the limit. He asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, � adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1791 , approving CUP 97-4, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � C. Case No. PP 84-39 Amendment #1 - LEEDS AND STRAUSS, Applicants Request for approval of an amendment to the approved precise plan of design to allow construction of 22 additional new hotel suites at Vacation Inn and conversion and remodel of the former Pasta House Restaurant to an administration and conference center in the PC(4) S.P. zone on the south side of Highway 1 1 1 , approximately 680 feet east of Shadow Hills Road. . Mr. Smith noted that plans were on display and the proposal was to add 22 additional hotel suites and convert and remodel the former Pasta House Restaurant to an administration and conference center facility for the Vacation Inn. He demonstrated on the display map the location of Highway 111 , the existing Vacation Inn facility, the existing vacant Pasta House Restaurant, the proposed two-story 22 additional hotel suites, and the existing tennis courts to the south and rear portion of the site. He indicated that the properties would be consolidated into one and when they do that there would be enough parking to support the additional 22 units. The Pasta House Restaurant would be converted into a facility that would allow creation of a new lobby and check-in facility as well as a conference room plus a dining area where �,,,, continental or sit down breakfast would be available �o guests of Vacation Inn only similar to what is offered across the street at Embassy Suites. The number of parking spaces would comply with the hotel requirement but it would not allow the Pasta House Restaurant, once it's converted, to be utilized as a restaurant open to the public at any time in the future. Condition #6 was inserted into the draft resolution that said that the food service facility shall only serve guests of the hotel. The facility shall not be open to the general public. Architecture has been reviewed by ARC and received preliminary approval. The setbacks and side yards and all but the usable open space comply with the code requirements. With the revisions there was a reduction in the usable open space down to 38.1 % versus the 40% requirement. The code allows the Planning Commission to waive that requirement. Staff felt that the improvements being made to the project more than offset the 1 .9% reduction in usable open space. He felt the findings for approval of the precise plan could be affirmed and indicated that this was a Class 3 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that they were adding 22 more rooms and deleting 22 parking spaces. Mr. Smith explained that they were deleting parking, but was not sure it was 22 spaces. Commissioner Jonathan felt that was what was in the staff report in paragraph 3 A. Mr. Smith explained that there were 68 parking spaces on the restaurant site and they � 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 would end up with 42 spaces there. They do have a net increase to the hotel itself and they would end up with 170 parking spaces which is the requirement for 155 units at the hotel. Commissioner Jonathan said that in terms of actual spaces, the report indicated that they would lose 12 on the hotel site and lose 10 on the former Pasta House site. Mr. Smith concurred. He said that there was a row of parking in front and on the side of the Pasta House which were the parking spaces that would be Iost, but they picked up the parking spaces on the west side of the existing restaurant. Commissioner Jonathan said that in terms of net gain or loss, they were losing 22 spaces. Mr. Smith explained that they were losing the use of the facility as a . restaurant open to the general public. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they compared what they ended up with compared to the total parking spaces that exist now between the hotel and Pasta House, if they were down 22. Mr. Smith replied yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were adding 22 rooms; Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that condition #6 in the conditions of approval would restrict the food service facility to guests of the hotel. If the hotel sponsored a convention, he asked if the users of that facility were considered guests of that hotel. Mr. Smith stated that guests of the hotel would be registered guests of the hotel and if the commission wished to add the words "registered guests of the hotel" staff would be amenable to � that addition. Commissioner Jonathan felt that should be discussed later � because there was a real control issue and how the City could control those ,� that attend a convention or seminar or a watch or art sale to guests of the hotel. There was a potential problem, particularly with regard to parking. Mr. Smith felt there wasn't a problem at Embassy Suites across the street and they have the same situation. Commissioner Jonathan noted that when there is a Mayor's Breakfast or similar event, there are parking problems. He said he just wanted to get clarification as to the net loss of parking spaces. Chairperson Ferguson said he wanted to follow up on Commissioner Jonathan's point and asked if staff read condition #6 to include catering to hotel guests only. Mr. Smith replied yes. Chairperson Ferguson asked if, as an example, there was a Mayor's Breakfast where the Chamber of Commerce showed up and there was a parking problem, there wouldn't be a breakfast because no food could be served. He asked if that was staff's interpretation. Mr. Smith said that the area they have set aside for guests, if they stayed at Embassy Suites, a guest had to show them a key to get into that area to get the "free food". There was a conference center facility here for about 4,000 square feet which was shown on floor plans distributed to commission in their packet of plans. He said it was possible that if they hosted the Mayor's Breakfast in there and handed out coffee and whatever, if the hotel was at 90% occupancy that night, there might be a parking situation. Chairperson � Ferguson said to clarify on Commissioner Jonathan's questions, as he understood it, in the current zoning with approval for a restaurant use and the 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � hotel use there is sufficient parking under the code and as it is now configured with no restaurant use there is also sufficient parking under the code. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Ferguson said that whether they lose or gain a net, it was almost immaterial as long as they complied with the code. Mr. Smith said that was how staff looked at it. Chairperson Ferguson o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICK HOLDEN, Holden and Johnson Architects, 44-267 Monterey . Avenue in Palm Desert, said he was present to answer any questions. He noted that this is a restaurant that has never been successful. The hotel as originally designed had intentions of opening onto the frontage road that would open into Indian Wells. Indian Wells did not proceed with the frontage road and the site has since been developed and the owner of the site did not wish for access to go through there. Right now the check-in center of the lobby of the Vacation Inn was about as far as you could get around the corner and it was the feeling that this building would serve both purposes and be more toward the hotel entrance. It would be used for meetings at the hotel and they have received requests for meetings for several years and they felt they could � combine that as well as being able to provide breakfast and afternoon refreshments for their guests much like other hotels. That was the purpose. Commissioner Campbell asked if the hotel guests would miss the putting greens. She said she saw quite a few people playing on them recently. Mr. Holden said there was still hope that Ron Gregory would be given the challenge work out some putting area along the face of the tennis courts and along the back corner of the parking lot. The suites actually backed up to the Holiday Inn parking lot and there was a rise on that property and they would dig down and put a garden back there and make something special out of that area. He felt there was still some ft�ture talk of putting in another putting green if it is so desired. It would just be stretched out. Chairperson Ferguson said that he assumed that the hotel historically has had catered events on its site. Mr. Holden indicated that the hotel manager was present and could probably answer that question. He doubted it because there wasn't a room they could hold events in right now. � . 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � � =.� MS. MARILYN MOLDE, the Director of Operations for the Vacation Inn "'� Hotels, 10727 Ironwood Avenue in Santee, California, stated that they have not had catered events. Chairperson Ferguson asked if they would anticipate having catered events in the future. Ms. Molde replied that they would and they would cater them themselves. . Commissioner Jonathan asked if the catered events would include wedding receptions, bar mitzvah receptions, and things of that nature. Ms. Molde concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the guests of the bride and groom would not necessarily be limited to guests of the hotel. They might be local people that would attend the reception and use the hall. Ms. Molde said that could be possible. In her experience at their other properties, hotel guests had their meetings at the hotels. � � � Commissioner Beaty asked if Ms. Molde felt comfortable with the parking situation based on their other properties. Ms. Molde replied yes, very comfortable. Commissioner Beaty asked if parking was a problem, if it would be detrimental to their future catered-type business. Ms. Molde replied that it definitely could be. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the application. There was no one. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to address the commission in OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was concerned about the parking issue and he was unpersuaded that it was not an issue. He felt it was very much going to be a problem and the more successful that the hotel is, the greater the problem it would be. He was not persuaded by the applicant's response that she didn't think parking would be a problem because why would someone °: , ask for this and then say parking would be a problem so don't allow the '� � application. At the same time he wished something could be done with that ;:� � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � site since it has been a revolving door for many unsuccessful restaurants, but he couldn't buy this solution. He felt that Rick Holden was extremely talented and that there was a lot of talent there and design potential and he would like to see something that creatively at a minimum did not delete parking spaces. He understood that this might be in compliance with code, but a reality check told him that they were adding rooms and taking away parking spaces. That didn't make sense to him. He thought this kind of facility with catering capability lent itself to uses such as wedding receptions and other types of events, meetings and conferences that would draw a crowd that was not necessarily, or at least partially not staying at the hotel. The parking ordinance . didn't specifically address that as a problem. He didn't think there was an ordinance for meeting sites specifically that says when there are 4,000 square feet of ineeting space, that meant they would bring in 200 or 300 cars. That was the problem they would encounter. Because of the lack of parking, he was not in favor of the application. Commissioner Campbell felt that with the conditions of approval, especially condition #6, if they did make a note that only registered guests from the hotel would be able to use that facility, she wouldn't find any problem with that at all since it would not be a public conference hall, just open to registered guests. Commissioner Jonathan said he would not have a problem with that, � but asked if Commissioner Campbell thought that was what the applicant was willing to accept or has in mind, because she was suggesting limiting physical presence of people on that facility to only registered guests. Commissioner Campbell felt that was what he was saying, that if someone had a wedding or other event, it would only be for guests of the hotel and no one from the outside. Commissioner Jonathan said that he was concerned that if the applicant rethinks that, she may realize that could create a problem for her if a guest of her hotel has a wedding reception and someone local was invited and they were not a registered guest of the hotel, then they couldn't go in for the dinner. He wasn't sure the applicant would want that, but it would certainly solve the problem and he would have no problem with that. Commissioner Beaty noted that it would be tough to enforce. Commissioner Beaty asked what the status of the parking situation was at Embassy Suites since it was a similar type of operation and asked how many parking spaces they have and if they fit the formula used for this proposal. Mr. Smith said that Embassy Suites was very similar. The 1 .1 parking space per suite was the requirement and they did not add in parking for their breakfast and cocktail area. They did add in parking for Sonoma Grill at a ratio of 40% of the normal restaurant rate, so there were extra parking spaces there, but it was as a result of Sonoma Grill which is a restaurant open to the general public. Commissioner Beaty noted that Embassy Suites holds a lot of � conferences and seminars and he has attended some of them and said that 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 .� there were a lot of cars there, but he has never been unable to find a space and they have convention center space above the lobby. Mr. Smith concurred that there were about four conference rooms. Commissioner Beaty said that he has attended meetings with 300 people, but the Mayor's Breakfast once a month was a special situation. He asked if the formula that was used for the Vacation Inn proposal was the same that was used for Embassy Suites or if Embassy Suites had surplus parking based on that formula. Mr. Smith said they meet the code with the provision that they gave them an offset on the Sonoma Grill, which he thought was 40% of the normal rate for a restaurant. . Chairperson Ferguson agreed with Commissioner Jonathan in terms of concern. He took note of the fact that there hasn't been a successful restaurant use there since the inception of the restaurant and he was hopeful that the applicant would have a very successful conference center there, but with that success came increased parking problems which might need to be addressed. He did not want to tell them who they could or couldn't serve food �to because that was a business decision, but he agreed with Commissioner Beaty that if parking becomes a problem, it would hurt their business or other businesses and it would have to be addressed. He asked the City Attorney if they could maintain continuing jurisdiction over the parking problem, approve it as set forth tonight, and if the issue does present or manifest a problem, the commission could go back and address their food and beverage service or basically readdress the problem if it becomes a problem and if it doesn't become a problem, then everyone would be happy. He said that it was the same thing they did with an item that was on their last agenda relative to a strawberry stand, although they specified the remedial measures in the resolution, while they wouldn't be adding any here. Ms. Jacobson said that they could continue to have jurisdiction over them with respect to the parking and if there was a problem, they should be given notice and it could come back before commission as a hearing item. Chairperson Ferguson asked the applicant if that would be acceptable if the City monitors the situation and if it becomes a problem, then they would deal with it at that time. Ms. Molde agreed. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that addressed Commissioner Jonathan's concerns. Commissioner Jonathan said that personally it did not although it was a viable solution. He didn't think his nay vote would stand in the way of this moving forward, but he did want to remain on record as expecting a parking problem and he was not inclined to allow that to happen. He hoped there wasn't a problem, but he perceived that there would be. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he hoped he was right too, but unlike other applications they have had, if he was wrong they have a legal mechanism to do something about it. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in theory that works well and fine, but in fact they have never gone back and revoked to his � knowledge a conditional use permit. He didn't know if they have ever gone back and even amended one. He thought people accept the status quo once 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 �r.• a problem is created. His feeling was that they worked hard enough to create and maintain a parking standard and they have a project under precise plan that meets the parking and now it is before them with something that would result in more usage and less parking spaces and that was the problem he had. This might set a precedent and it might be very successful, maybe it would create a problem and it might be the first time something comes back and then they would fix the problem. He didn't have a problem with what they were suggesting and felt it was a viable alternative, but he felt strongly enough about the probability that they were creating a problem that he was not persuaded in favor of the application. Chairperson Ferguson noted that staff indicated that the proposed project meets the parking code and he didn't want to hinder the developer because of the City's lack of diligence in enforcing conditional use permits. If there was a problem with that, then the City needed to look internally and not tell the applicant who they could or could not serve. Commissioner Jonathan felt that was a good point. Chairperson Ferguson said that he would move for approval with the added condition that the City retain continuing jurisdiction to monitor the traffic situation and have the authority to modify conditions as they relate to parking � if and when the City believes there is a problem and they would then go through a hearing process to resolve it. Action: Moved by Chairperson Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff and adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1792, approving PP 84-39 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions as amended. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no). D. Case No. CUP 91-8 Amendment - SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CHURCH, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and amendment to a conditional use permit allowing the temporary use of a five-acre parcel west of an existing church facility to locate a 6400 square foot classroom building and a 260-space parking lot for a period not to exceed 18 months. Mr. Drell indicated that this church was originally approved by the City in 1982 and they did some additional construction in 1985 with some temporary modular classrooms, built a sanctuary in 1991 and got approval of a large � addition to that sanctuary. He said that the original plan had a lot of additional 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 buildings on it and they chose to make the sanctuary larger and provided the parking for that sanctuary in lieu of a gym and some other facilities. He noted this church has been very successful and has attracted a very large permanent congregation and attracts a large attendance from visitors in the area. His understanding was that on weekends and during peak season they attract 5700 attendees to their services. He said there was an existing 1 139 seat sanctuary and they have 357 cars. They have a service on Saturday evening and four services on Sunday during the peak season beginning at 8:00 a.m. every hour and ending at 12:00 p.m. with a 15 minute break between the four services. The church was providing a valuable service to the community and as a result has attracted a lot of business. The result is that when this church went in, it was the first development on Hovley and although the City wishes them well, he didn't think the City anticipated that they would be as successful as they are. As a result they have created some problems that weren't anticipated when they were first approved. He said they were similar to a theater almost the size of the McCallum that has four consecutive showings of a performance and the incoming and outgoing attendees all exchange in a 15 minute period. They themselves recognize that they have outgrown this facility and have purchased and gained approval from the County for a large, more appropriately sized facility on the south side of Fred � Waring at Washington. As a result of their success they have generated some � congestion problems and the City has had a history of complaints relative to ,� noise and lighting which were principally related to evening events. He noted the commission had a number of letters in opposition or suggesting conditions on the application. Some of them complained about the traffic congestion, parking which tended to overflow out of the lot and which goes up and down Hovley and into some of the residential areas. He said the letter they received today from Mr. Richards, who had been one of the more vocal critics of the facility, stated that he was not as critical of the traffic congestion which he has accepted, but his criticism was more related to the night time events that occur on this lot--sporting events, musical events, carnivals and in general the evening events of the church which cause certain noise problems when they let out. Mr. Richards also questioned the temporary nature of the application in that he feels the building will be built in a permanent fashion and would turn out to be permanent. Mr. Drell stated that he would respond to those specific issues when they get to the discussion of the conditions. In recognition of the problems that exist on the site, the church has informally used the five-acre parcel to the west of the property as a parking lot. They turfed it so that cars could park on it and have athletic events and it didn't create any dust. He indicated that one of the problems was that as traffic arrives, it is far greater than the capacity and the fact that the sanctuary is filled doesn't stop more cars from coming. There were people coming and going numerous times ;� during the day in an attempt to find an open seat in one for the four services. � To greater accommodate the traffic in one event, they were proposing to � 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � officially stripe with chalk the turf area to maximize the amount of parking it can handle and maximize the number children they can accommodate in the new building relative to the Sunday School. A secondary use of the building would be to house certain events that now occur in the evenings outside. The effect would be, as conditioned and agreed by the applicant, that with one exception there would no longer be any events held outside on this property. There was one exception. They requested approval for an outdoor event June 16 through June 20 between 9:00 a.m. and 1 1 :00 a.m. In discussing this event with some of the residents, he didn't think this one exception would cause a particular problem. Based on his discussions with the residents and . in reading their letters, Mr. Drell developed ten conditions, most of which he had already discussed with the applicant. The first was that this building which a lot of residents would look out on would be adequately landscaped to mitigate the visual impact. The applicant agreed and they would present a landscape plan to the City's architectural commission and the suggestion was that since they would probably be planting a lot of large trees for their new facility, they could in essence stockpile some large trees here temporarily and place them in the ground in front of the building so they could get instant landscaping and then be able to move them to the new facility. 2) They would continue to maintain the lot with turf or another dust free surface. 3) With the exception of one event on June 16-20, 1997, there would be no more outdoor � events on the parcel, no more amplified music or public address system used by the church for any outdoor event, including those occurring on their existing facility. 4) The representatives of the church had not yet agreed to this condition, and staff was open to modification and/or experimentation, but the condition has to do with scheduling. Expecting that volume of traffic to exit and those coming in to find parking in a 15 minute period was unreasonable. Not only did it create a traffic congestion problem, but it effectively doubled the amount of parking needed in that those who are leaving the church have not left their parking spaces while those arriving are looking for parking spaces. At that one point in time they need parking spaces for twice the capacity of the auditorium. Based on that condition, even the 600+ spaces they would have would not be adequate for more than 2200 people. The condition suggests at least an hour gap and he suggested that they start with perhaps a half-hour gap and extend the 15 minutes to 30 minutes to allow at least a large portion or some portion of those in one service to be able to leave the facility allowing adequate parking or some parking to be freed up for people arriving. It might mean having to start services at 7:30 a.m. instead of 8:00 a.m. and extending services until 1 :00 or 1 :30 p.m. He understood that it would extend the overall problem over a greater period, but he believed it was worth a try and staff would monitor the situation and have the ability to adjust it if it was an improvement or if it was deemed to be a detriment, they could go back to the way it is, but he felt it was something that had to � be addressed. Mr. Drell said that for this to be a temporary use, they were 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � convinced that the new facility will break ground this summer and if it wasn't for the new facility, staff would agree with Mr. Richards that they would not have the faith that this was a temporary use. He said a condition would be that the continuation of the approval of this temporary use beyond September 30 would be contingent upon initiation of construction and progress toward completion of the Fred Waring facility. If it appeared to staff that the new facility was not moving forward they would bring this back to the commission with the ability to modify it or revoke it and the church would have to convince the City again that they were going to move and the ultimate solution would occur. 6) The general condition that the Planning Commission may . review at any time the approval if there is evidence of continuing problems involving compliance with or the effectiveness of the conditions. 7) The temporary building shall be removed prior to September 30, 1998, which he has been assured would be adequate time for phase one to be completed. Although the City does not look forward to having to evict or enforce this condition, technically the City does have the power and hopefully there would be no necessity. 8) Any permanent or temporary exterior lighting shall comply with the adopted outdoor Palm Desert Lighting Ordinance and shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. He said that was an ordinance that requires all night lighting to be shielded and limits any trespass � that occurs beyond the property line into a residential neighborhood. 9) Air � conditioning and other mechanical equipment shall be ground-mounted on the ,,,� east side of the building, which would be away from the residential area. He said it was anticipated that this building would have a significant air conditioning load in the summer time. He said condition 10 had to do with Mr. Richards' complaint because sometimes during evening activities, even if they were indoors, as they leave they can take a good amount of time and generate quite a bit of noise, so the condition was that church officials shall maintain supervision until all activity participants leave the property in their vehicles and that all these activities cease at 10:00 p.m. He said that provided these conditions are adhered to, staff believed that the situation out there would be significantly improved over the next 18 months and would allow more peace and tranquility to this neighborhood pending the ultimate solution which is the relocation of the church. Based on these conditions, staff recommended approval. Chairperson Ferguson addressed the audience. He indicated that historically in hearing items where there are a large number of people attending, it was easy to have spontaneous outbursts of applause or comments when people hear things they like or don't like. He stated that would be inappropriate here. The Planning Commission is required to look at evidence and look at facts and it was an administrative proceeding and the audience's comments or clapping � was immaterial to the commission's deliberations. While he was not suggesting that the attendees would do this, he said that for the few minority 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � numbers of residents present in opposition to this proposal, they had a right to be here, they had a right to speak their minds on what their concerns are, and the commission was supposed to look at those concerns and weigh the benefits and burdens and come up with a reasonable accommodation. He said he knew a lot of the congregants and he was sure they would welcome the people's rights to come up and speak their minds without intimidating them with comments or anything else. He was not suggesting they would, but this forum was not a pep rally, it was more like a legal proceeding and they would be looking at evidence tonight. The second point he wanted to make, particularly when commissioners ask questions of the applicant, or opponents, . is that they are looking at evidence. The issues tonight are set forth in the staff report and concern parking, traffic and a building. They do not concern their faith, their religion, or their merit in the community. He thought they all recognized that and their outstanding success was a tribute to their organization and where they are going and he commended them for that, but he explained that was not the issue tonight. If criticisms were leveled, they were criticisms based on traffic problems and problems that people experience and not who they are as people. He asked if the commission had any questions for staff. Commissioner Beaty asked for clarification between condition 10 which limits +� the applicant to outdoor activities until 10:00 p.m. at the existing facility and the staff report indicated that the applicant agreed to stop conducting outdoor activities of any kind; he asked if condition 10 only related to the new facility. M�. Drell concurred. His understanding was that they also have some roller blading events in their parking lot and in discussing those events with some of the residents, they didn't feel those had to cease, they were mainly interested in the events on the five-acre parcel. The conditions were referring to two different types of events. Chairperson Ferguson indicated he had a question on the same issue and noted that conditions 3 and 10 seemed inconsistent because on one hand they had no outdoor events whatsoever and on the other they were having outdoor activities that would cease at 10:00 p.m., which was pointed out by Commissioner Beaty. Mr. Drell explained that the condition stated that with the exception of one event June 16-20, 1997 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 1 1 :30 a.m. the subject five acre parcel (with the parking lot and building) would not be used for any outdoor events. There would not be any amplified music or public address systems used by the church for any outdoor events, including their existing facility. They could have outdoor events in their existing facility, but there could not be any public address systems or amplified music outdoors. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there was any difference between an activity and event. Mr. Drell said they were interchangeable and � could be the same. Chairperson Ferguson said that he assumed Mr. Drell was 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � talking about church-sponsored activities. Mr. Drell said he believed this was � the church's property and they were in control of all events and sponsor to a certain degree any event that occurs on their property. Chairperson Ferguson noted that point but felt the people in the community at large see a large five- acre grassy parcel and if they chose to associate there after 10:00 p.m. and it was not a church-sponsored event, he would not expect staff to expect them to hire security guards and monitor it after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Drell said that was a legal question, but he believed that each property owner is responsible for what happens on their own property. Ms. Jacobson replied that to a certain extent that was true and they would certainly be liable if . something happened on their property. It seemed they would want to retain control over what was going on over their property. Chairperson Ferguson agreed, to the best of their ability, but it was a five-acre parcel of grass and if people go there, they were using some measure of good faith. Mr. Drell didn't believe that those sorts of activities have been the predominate cause of complaints. He directed them back to condition 6--if for some reason this becomes an attractive nuisance, then they might want them to secure it. He reminded commission of their deliberations relative to the Montessori School when there were complaints of people hanging out in the parking lot and they placed a condition that it was their responsibility because they created this � opportunity for hanging out, so they needed to secure it. � Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DAVID MOORE, Post Office Box 13130 in Palm Desert, stated that he was the Senior Pastor at Southwest Community Church. He said he knew they were concerned with facts tonight, so he had taken their words seriously in the sense that facts were the issue and the fact was that it was hard to overestimate the impact of this church in the community. He said they appreciated the opportunity to minister here and they had done everything they could as a church to build good relationships with their community, their neighbors, everything from going to neighbors and talking to them one on one and endeavoring to help them understand what they are doing and why, and bending and flexing their program in order to help and accommodate them to sponsor Palm Desert Master Corral and so forth. They wanted to be part of the city and part of the community. He said they were in perfect agreement with nine of the conditions that were placed, but condition #4 that asked them to put an hour between services was factually not workable. It would stretch out their service times to 2:00 p.m., thus making the problem worse. They already spend well over S 1 ,000 per � month to provide for the police service in order to get people in and out and it would be that much more costly for all those additional hours to 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � pay for the police to be there. The reality of it was that people don't go to church in California at 2:00 p.m. so putting an hour in between each of the services would cut attendance dramatically. If that was the goal, they should say that, but it was not a workable solution for them. The other fact that he felt had been overlooked because no one had been there on Sunday to see it was that when they went to four services with 15 minutes in between, the parking conditions improved rather than worsened. The reason for that was that they have spread the people out over a four hour period of time and one of their parking lot attendants was present to tell the commission exactly what has happened more specifically. Forcing them to go to a half an hour or an � hour between those services especially during the peak season would damage the ministry to the community they are endeavoring to serve as well as complicate the traffic problem because everyone would try to jam into three services instead. With that exception they would be happy to accept the nine conditions, but they couldn't flex with all ten and didn't want to go to half an hour between services either because of this one limited time of the year (six weeks or so) when they really need to spread the people out, rather than jamming them together. The majority of the community and neighbors were in favor of this. They moved there after Southwest was there so it shouldn't have been a �,,,, surprise to anyone who purchased their property. Most of the people present were just letting the commission know they were here. In support of this, he said he had a couple of thousand petitions to submit that just said to get on with life and deal with these issues. Mr. Moore stated that they have every intention of moving and they already have over S3 million invested in the new facility so they wouldn't be doing that if they weren't certain they would be moving. He said they would be happy to be away from some of the complaints and cursing that came their way. He said he had a letter that came from one of their members that really represents how they felt and it was addressed to the Planning Commission from Dick Heckman, "I wholeheartedly support Southwest Community Church in acquiring a building permit, Hovley Lane property. As I stated before, few churches of America broke beyond the comfort zone of their walls to reach into the community like Southwest Community Church. Southwest is real, relevant and motivational and we as a community should support this important work. Sincerely, Dick Heckman of U.S. Filter." Mr. Moore asked for any questions. Chairperson Ferguson congratulated Mr. Moore on their phenomenal success. He read somewhere recently that they were one of the fastest growing churches in the United States. He asked if he had projected trends on their growth based on prior years in projecting future years since they were �i�r. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � � � continuing to grow. Mr. Moore informed commission that growth has been � averaging 20% per year. Some years had been 30%, some 18%. It basically depended on how the building had been enlarged. They were already at the 80% capacity mark for their facility and their tradition showed them that when they hit 80%, that is when things flatten out, so they didn't foresee this church growing another 20% next year. He said that at 80% it flattens out because of the inconvenience factor, some people had to sit behind poles and their building was not very user friendly--it was uncomfortable and the seats were lousy. There was always a percentage of seats that no one wanted and they regularly had multiple dozens of people every Sunday who elect to leave . and come back to try again. Chairperson Ferguson noted that he was an elder at his Presbyterian church and they also had a parking problem, but they found it's only a problem during the season, which for them was a three-month problem. He suspected it was a longer problem for Southwest. He asked if the parking problem was a seasonal occurrence at their church and if they went from four to three services at some point. Mr. Moore replied yes and explained that it peaks during this period of time they are in right now. That was why they elected to go to the four services in order to alleviate that parking problem and grant people better seating in the celebration center. He thought it was their fourth week of having four services because it was quite a scary experiment for them and they weren't sure it would work, but it worked better than they dreamed. One of the reasons they didn't want to have an hour or even a half hour between services was because this has worked so well and smoothly that they want to be able to repeat that next year during the peak season. Chairperson Ferguson asked when they would go back to three services. Mr. Moore replied they would go back to three services the Sunday after Easter. Chairperson Ferguson said that he assumed that when they go back to three services they have more than 15 minutes between services. Mr. Moore indicated that was correct, they go to half an hour between services. Chairperson Ferguson stated that his church found that a half hour solved their problems as well so he didn't think an hour made a lot of sense. He asked when they intended to go to four services since they were asking for an 18-month extension. Mr. Moore said that if they could predict their growth curve they would be really thrilled. He was guessing February of next year, which was when they started four services this year. Chairperson Ferguson said that meant they were looking at a two-month crunch problem in terms of the 15 minute break as opposed to half an hour. Mr. Moore stated that the crunch had not been a crunch and had been smoother with four services parking wise than with the three. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he also noticed that they put a sheriff on Monterey Avenue to help expedite egress from Hovley onto Monterey and � asked when they began that; Mr. Moore replied that it was years ago. Chairperson Ferguson said that he knew they had someone on Hovley, but 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 �rr was not sure they had someone at Monterey until recently. Mr. Moore said that it has been a long time and he remembered their Business Administrator was Paula Pease and that had been five years, so it had been a long time that they have been trying to help with the traffic situation. Commissioner Jonathan noted that some of the residents have expressed concerns and have apparently had some problems, at least from their perception, and asked if it was Mr. Moore's perception that some of those concerns were valid or have merit. Mr. Moore replied that when they do the harvest fun fair, which is their Halloween alternative to discourage kids from . going door to door with all the dangers associated with that, he could see how that would bother someone having carnival rides in their backyard. The flip side of that was that he would rathe� see kids at a carnival on a safe piece of property than out running the streets and risking being hit by cars and eating poisoned apples, and things like that. He asked if it was a personal question. Commissioner Jonathan said that from his point it was more of a land use quest'ion. He said he understood the justification for all of the activities they do and as the chairman indicated, he didn't think that was at issue here. The contribution their organization has made to the community was unquestionable. What he was getting at was if there was validity from the standpoint of land use and looking at a neighbor that is trying to enjoy the � serenity of their home and if they are being adversely impacted in Mr. Moore's mind and if there was some validity to some of the concerns expressed. Mr. Moore replied that with the harvest fun fair, the things that go late, and the carnivals he could see how someone could say that they didn't want kids back there. The other activities they have done he would have to say no. He noted that just this week one gentleman drove his car all the way from his home all the way around to the other side (10 acres away) to curse out some children who were in the parking lot. This is not an issue of infringing on somebody's right to a quiet life. This was just someone with an ax to grind. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he understood things occurred, but he was trying to stay with what the commission was here to deal with, but that was unfortunate and was beyond anything the City could control and probably what the church could control. Commissioner Jonathan stated that staff proposed mitigations for the next 18 months and asked Mr. Moore, as an honest person, if in his mind if those mitigations would be effective in resolving the perceived problems that some of the residents have expressed. Mr. Moore replied absolutely, no question. Commissioner Campbell asked if the 6400 square foot classroom building that they are proposing to build was just for Sunday School. Mr. Moore replied that the building would be used at different times during the week. He indicated that it was a portable building and it was designed as a storage � facility on the new property and as they got to looking at things trying to solve 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � � � their dilemma with their neighbors and noted that they let the children go out � on the lawn one Sunday and that was not well received, so they needed to do something different. He said they could move that building over to their current site at a minimal expense so it was a temporary building and they wouldn't pay for it and leave it, so they would be taking it with them. Commissioner Campbell asked if their services were only on Saturdays and Sundays. She asked if that was correct or if they had other activities. Mr. Moore replied that there were things going on all during the week. Commissioner Campbell asked about the well. Mr. Moore stated that they sold that piece of property to the water district and someone allowed them to drill , , the well for water purposes. He said that it goes 24 hours a day and the neighbors were probably upset about that also. Chairperson Ferguson said he was out at the site and it said Southwest on the crane. Mr. Moore said it was not their company and not their well. Commissioner Campbell asked if they were planning to asphalt the parking lot, or if they would just use turf. Mr. Moore replied that they would just leave it grass, as long as it didn't allow sand to blow. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Drell if the church had anything to do about widening the road on that side now that they would have a parking lot there. Mr. Drell said that finishing off the curb and gutter was not a condition that he was going to impose. Theoretically they would impose ;� that condition when a permanent development occurred. His understanding ,� � was that ultimate development of that property would be a residential use and � they would be responsible for installing the curb and gutter. He said the proposal was only temporary and it was all being approved on the premise that this would be a residential use when it is developed in a permanent fashion. Commissioner Beaty asked if the temporary building would have a slab under it or if it had a floor that would be removed. Mr. Moore replied that it would have a slab. Commissioner Beaty asked what they would do with the slab once the building was moved. Mr. Drell said that staff would let the slab stay and ultimately when a permanent development is developed it would be bulldozed and graded like any other property. Commissioner Beaty noted that it could be a great skateboard area. Mr. Drell agreed that it might, but it would control the dust while it's there. Mr. Moore said they do need an area for skateboards. Commissioner Beaty agreed if it was for supervised skateboards. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the proposal. MS. SALLY BURRAGE, 40-870 Avenida Arcada in Palm Desert, stated that she was asking the commission to approve the conditional use permit for Southwest Community Church. She said that she works for � David Moore's radio ministry. His sermons air daily on 51 radio stations throughout the United States. She received approximately 400 phone 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 �w.. calls into her office every week. Many of these calls were from out of town listeners who want to come to the desert to attend Southwest and hear Mr. Moore speak. She said she spends many, many hours each week giving out directions, the names of local hotels, restaurants, places to go as well as things to do during their stay in the desert because they do stay since they are from out of town. She said there was no question in her mind that revenues come into Palm Desert because of Southwest Community Church. The next issue she wanted to discuss was that she is the parent of a sophomore at Palm Desert High School and the quality of the youth programs at Southwest were . very important to her and this church was willing to spend millions of dollars on a new facility to keep the youth of this valley off the streets and in a supervised area where they are in a Christian environment. The structure up for approval was temporary and was sorely needed. She was a volunteer every Sunday from 7:30 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. in the tape room which is in the front of the church and weekly she watched parents bring their children up to the church and as they get to the Sunday School rooms that are too overly crowded, they turn and walk away. She thought that was tragic and they needed this building desperately. Lastly, she said that she was a neighbor of Southwest Community Church and she lives two blocks away. There was traffic �,,,, on Hovley at 9:00, 10:00, 1 1 :00 and 12:00 on Sundays right now, but it was very temporary. There was no traffic during the church services and the traffic was seasonal. Since the church was located on Hovley before the neighboring houses were built, traffic on Sunday and night events should have been anticipated. She said she knew they were there when they bought their house three years ago. The fact that the traffic has increased was proof that Southwest Community Church was providing a much needed community service. The question before the commission was if they would satisfy the wishes of a handful of people, some inconvenience during a short period of time, of if they would satisfy the spiritual needs of hundreds of families. Southwest Community Church and the radio ministry have made a positive impact on the lives of thousands of Palm Desert residents. She urged the commission to vote for approval. Chairperson Ferguson reiterated that no one present doubted the virtue of the Southwest Community Church. The issues were parking, inconvenience and the rights of their neighbors and their desire to respect those rights. He asked that the comments be focused toward those issues. MR. RICK VALENSKI, 69-679 Adano in Cathedral City, stated that he appreciated all that the commission has said and it seemed that the only bone of contention was something that he has been involved with for +r�.r 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 ;� � the last four years and that was the parking, both in and out of their � church. Chairperson Ferguson asked if he was the parking monitor for the church. Mr. Valenski concurred and indicated that there were others that have also been doing it for years and they were out there every Sunday. Going to four services greatly reduced their traffic problem and the fact that they have officers out on the street that the church does pay for takes care of the traffic problem for the most part. He said that they . weren't going to meet everyone's needs and there would be complaints and for about ten minutes of time during each service someone may have to wait for about 30 seconds to stop their path down Hovley. With the four services they have fewer cars going in and fewer going out and as a result their guys are standing around with nothing to do. They were really busy before and now it was much better with four services. The purpose of the building was to get them back to having fewer services because they could facilitate their children and that was what this was about--it was making sure the children have a place to go because right now they have outgrown where they are and their parking ; has been somewhat misrepresented. In terms of alleviating problems, `� they have addressed them through the men that work in the parking lot ,� and they addressed the curb and gutter situation by having cones and directing traffic on their facility and with the officers on the street, they have yet to have, in his recollection during his four years, any accidents except for one minor fender bender. Besides someone having a heart attach at their facility, they have not had any reason to have anyone there from emergency services. He thought they were doing a good job and it would be out of line and unfortunate to stretch their services out over six or seven hours. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he didn't like to put remedial devices in for problems that have not manifested themselves and it was hard for him to envision, because he has stood on Highway 74 at his own church and monitoFed people to try and ease the problems for people coming and going to San Diego on Highway 74, and people curse and yell and it was not a fun job, but you know traffic. He stated that it was hard for him, because they faced this exact same issue, to picture a 1 139 seat capacity sanctuary which means they have 1 100 people coming in and 1 100 people going out in a 15 minute window in what he calculated to be under this revised plan 617 parking spaces, but Mr. Valenski was the guy there and he hadn't been, so he wanted to ask Mr. Valenski a couple of questions about his personal experience. He � asked how many people were monitoring the parking lot. Mr. Valenski replied eight total. Chairperson Ferguson noted that they have been working with law 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � enforcement on Hovley. Mr. Valenski said they also have worked with them on Monterey. Chairperson Ferguson asked if, in Mr. Valenski's opinion, this was an orderly transition of 2200 people in the 15 minute windows. Mr. Valenski replied absolutely. He said he would be happy to submit his diagrams and plans and noted that they have monthly meetings. He said they have had times when they improved this steadily over a two and a half year period and he said they had eight people, but they only use four at a time and they still get vehicles in and out. He said there have been fewer complaints and people are finding places to park and they were getting in and out and as mentioned earlier, they have not had any accidents. Chairperson Ferguson asked if egress . from Monterey to Hovley had been a problem historically. Mr. Valenski replied absolutely. It was just a matter of that window of time and they felt there was a need because if someone stopped for 30 seconds in front of their facility, by the time they get to Monterey, if they were unhappy for 30 seconds it was going to be another minute on Monterey, so having an officer there has addressed that problem. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that officer had been placed there recently to address the problem. Mr. Valenski said that the officer had been there at his own discretion for the past two years. Chairperson Ferguson asked if it would be safe to say that the historical problems of egress onto Monterey weren't really going to go away under this plan. Mr. Valenski didn't believe so. What they have under this plan was a � smaller period of time. Under the four services plan that still exists and he would still have to be there because there was a tremendous flow, but there was a smaller amount at each service. Therefore, the period of time he is out there is much reduced, so the periods of time people are waiting is much reduced. The problem itself didn't go away, but it had been significantly reduced. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the problems subside somewhat when they move to the 30 minute breaks at three services as opposed to 15 minute breaks and four services. Mr. Valenski thought all of their breaks were similar. As far as he could see everything had been orderly, even when there were only three services because of how they were set up. He didn't think they inconvenienced anyone more than 30 seconds on Hovley just going in and out of the facility. MS. CINDY FINERTY, 43-592 Via Badalona in Palm Desert, stated that she was here to speak from her heart about the rewards and rigors of volunteerism. She understood what it meant to really give of oneself while wanting nothing in return other than to know that they have made a difference in the world. She knew that to be a volunteer one must be filled with dedication, passion and selflessness. She knew because she is a volunteer. She said that everyone knows the theory behind volunteer work--by giving unto others they make the world a better place and enrich themselves in the process. She asked what more � anyone could ask. Because she served as president of her homeowners 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 , association, she was able to understand that it is common practice that 10% of the people do 90% of the work. She served on several committees for the City of Palm Desert, including EDAC, Desert Willow and Project Area 4. She said she did this because she was endeavoring to make the community a better place to live. What was at issue tonight was a request from a few homeowners near the church that there be an hour break between services. She felt this was an unreasonable request and wanted to look at how many volunteers it took to make four services happen on a Sunday morning at Southwest. There were 100 people in the choir, 120 at Sunday School, ushers, tape . room, 20 in the high school room, the church staff and bottom line was that it took 350 volunteers to be on the site from 7:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. They were people who understand the serious problems facing today's society: crime, gangs, drugs, and teenage pregnancy. These volunteers were trying to make a difference in the lives of their children ,and the future of this country. She strongly questioned the mentality of those who were suggesting stumbling blocks be put in their way. She asked who in their right mind would deny this opportunity for good to have a chance to succeed. She felt these few homeowners were requesting too much of those trying to make a difference and asked that these homeowners instead look at the big picture. They were asking them to focus on the big picture rather than feel put out by the joyous noise. They wished they would put the need of these children ahead of the minor distractions. Colin Powell, General Chairman of the President's Summit for America's Future just said last month, "There are problems government can't solve, so it's up to the rest of us before it's too late." She said that Colin Powell related a story about a nine- year-old boy who asked the General if he thought if he didn't have two parents he would have made it and Powell said that kid cut him to the quick because this child was really saying this isn't my world you're talking about and could he still make it. Powell's response was yes he could, there were people here who care for you who will mentor you, who will watch over you and teach you right from wrong. General Powell was speaking about volunteers such as the ones at Southwest Community Church. They do care for the children; they watch over them and teach them right from wrong. Powell gave California as an example where Governor Wilson created a program to recruit 250,000 mentors for at risk youngsters by the year 2000. She said that the fact is that each person that has been blessed must reach down or reach back and lift up someone in need. She noted that a recent article in News Week pointed out that volunteerism used to be a natural part of family life, but unfortunately today it seemed that they saw the same `' faces in the volunteer groups. She asked where everyone else was or if they were just too busy these days. Popular magazines harp on the 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � notion of making time for ourselves and tell us how to guard our time and how to say no politely but firmly. She asked if society's scales had tipped too far in the wrong direction and if people have become so obsessed with their own personal health and well being that they are neglecting the health of the community around us. She stated that she was thankful that Southwest Community Church and Dave Moore have reached out and have had a positive impact on so many people in our hurting world with the message that God still cares. She said that she has spoken with many who have called Dave's radio ministry and she has listened countless times as they tell her how lucky she is to have Dave and Southwest Community Church nearby. She felt that Southwest was clearly an asset to Palm Desert and she stated on some Sundays some parishioners have to be turned away because there is simply no room left. She thought this seemed almost un-American. She said that the News Week article pointed out that volunteerism was no longer a priority in American life. Many who do volunteer limit their commitment to a one-time assignment. They will bake a cake or collect pledges, but don't ask them to chair a committee, serve on a board, or commit to showing up at a given time one day a week. While practicing random acts of kindness can make the world a friendlier place, what she felt was really needed was a long term commitment to causes that try � to improve their community. That was just what their volunteers at Southwest did. She said they give of themselves and do offer the community a long time commitment. Four services alone created a hardship, not only on the volunteers, but on their families as well. When she asked people to volunteer, the standard answer was that they wished they could but they don't have the time. She felt this argument had some validity because when people are away from their families all day, how could they justify leaving them at night or on the weekend to meet someone else's needs. She stated that it was a difficult choice but they needed to strike a careful balance. That was why the request for one hour between services was unreasonable. She said that Southwest was more than willing to comply with a reasonable request, such as conducting activities indoors, to landscape the metal building so that it is aesthetically pleasing to nearby residents, but to impose an unconscionable one hour between services would require their volunteers to stay an additional three hours from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and that would drive them to exhaustion. She stated that she has experienced the overwhelming rewards of volunteering, but she also knew there was a limit and the request for an hour between services was clearly going beyond that limit. Therefore, on behalf of the families of Southwest, she respectfully requested that the Planning Commission delete item four referring to one hour between services and � approve the conditional use permit. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson said that he assumed her point was that if, as recommended by staff, one hour was required between services it would seriously impede their efforts in recruiting volunteers. Ms. Finerty concurred. Chairperson Ferguson noted that staff somewhat entertained a suggested modification from one hour to half an hour and again if his math was correct they were talking about an additional 15 minutes for three intervals between four services, which was a total of 45 minutes. He asked if she shared the same view that 45 minutes would drive the volunteers to exhaustion as two hours would. Ms. Finerty said that she believed that having the four services as they do now has been a practical and reasonable solution to the problem for . the short time they endure it. Chairperson Ferguson complimented Ms. Finerty on her beautiful speech. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was prepared to stay all night to address land use issues and agreed that it was a wonderful speech, but asked that the land use issues be addressed. He noted that this was not a referendum about the existence of the church, the validity of the church or the people in it, they were here to deal with the land use issues. They were not here to address volunteerism, or the goodness of the church or the badness of the church. That was a non issue. They were there to address traffic and land use issues and he asked for people to please make an effort to abbreviate their comments and to focus on the land usage and that would be doing everyone a favor. Chairperson Ferguson added that the reason he did not interrupt Ms. Finerty earlier was that he was waiting to see what point she was getting at and one of the things that he believed was a legitimate concern for them were the burdens imposed on the applicant versus the benefits afforded to the residents and although it took a while to get there, he believed that her point was that her volunteer efforts would be se�iously impeded with a one hour gap and that had a little bit of a nexus to land use, but the point was still well taken. He said that they would all stipulate that this was one of the best things that has happened to residents of Palm Desert in a long time, but that was not an issue. They were not talking about the merits of their church, their religion, or what they do, but about parking and the building. With that in mind, he asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of this application. MR. DON STEPHENSON, 43-060 Tennessee Avenue in Palm Desert, stated that he could appreciate the difficult decision that the Planning Commission has because there are neighbors who unfortunately didn't recognize the tremendous success that Southwest would have and he felt that they were fortunate that they had a church that was trying to address that concern. He wanted to make a brief comment about the � parking and the time issue. He didn't think they would solve anything if they put an hour or two hours between services. He said he was a 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 �.. typical church goer and he goes to get there 15 minutes before the church service starts. If they lined the traffic up and put an hour between services, in his opinion all they would do was increase the problem because they would have the service get over and would have a lot of traffic going out, then they would have a nice quiet period, and then they would have another service start and people like himself would come 15 minutes before the service and get in. He said that parking at Southwest was kind of a joke and they do kid about that; but he really thought that spreading it out as some people have already said would potentially lengthen the problem for the residents around there . and he could appreciate their concern because people do park all around, but he thought that keeping it the way they have it and trying to address the concern by putting the building there to allow for inside activities was a tremendous step forward in faith by the church because they were trying to address the neighbors' concerns. He hoped the commission would approve this so that they could take care of their community and those people that want to come. Commissioner Jonathan said that he appreciated Mr. Stephenson's comments and saw his point. What Mr. Stephenson was suggesting was that he arrives 15 minutes early and therefore he was not running into the problem of people �r exiting the service because they were still sitting there waiting. Mr. Stephenson concurred and said that people were lining up to get in and there were only so many ways in and it was not a problem and he didn't have a problem getting in and he didn't have a problem getting out because when he leaves, he had to go out the way the officer tells him to go, even if he wanted to go the other way. What he was trying to say was that it was very efficient now and he thought that what happened was that they limited it to a very small period of time during the morning worship services and once in a while they have something in the evening at the church with people coming out, but had never experienced that as a problem. He thought that Southwest handled it extremely efficiently and he has had the privilege of attending some very large churches and he said that he has also sat on the Commission's side trying to make these decisions and he recognized how difficult it is. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Stephenson when he arrived early for the service if he experienced any difficulty in finding a place to park his car. Mr. Stephenson replied no, because they have the grass area. He said that before it was turfed it was a little exasperating because sometimes they couldn't see their cars for the dust, but since the turf had been put in, if they couldn't get into the main lot where they would like to park, they would park over in the turf lot. He said that he and his wife have attended Southwest since it used to be in the old building behind Shadow Mountain and he has never had a problem where he has waited more than two or three minutes to make a left � 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � � � � turn in and the only reason he had to wait was for the officers to let the through traffic pass by. MS. REBECCA SCOTT, 5657 Delsero Avenue in San Diego, stated that she does not know these people personally and this was the first time she had attended the church. She said she attended as a visitor last Sunday and heard about this meeting tonight and decided to attend to give her support. If the issue is parking, she needed to say that not knowing anything about the church and going to the 10:00 a.m. services and they went there between five and ten minutes early and . they went right into the lot, right into the service, right to their car afterward and right out. There was no issue with parking with the directions or holding up traffic. Chairperson Ferguson asked what day Ms. Scott attended the 10:00 a.m. service. Ms. Scott replied that it was last Sunday. MR. MARK JEFFREY, 73-390 Desert Rose in Palm Desert, stated that he was not a regular attender, but tried to get there almost every week and he has never had a parking problem. He thought they have been their own worst enemy by joking about the parking, but it has always :� been a non issue for him. He said that he has been late and ea�ly, for ,,,� the 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. services and it has never 6een an issue. Chairperson Ferguson asked for a show of hands of how many p�oponents of this proposal still wished to speak. He noted there were three more. MR. LES THOMAS, 64 Avenida Las Palmas in Rancho Mirage, stated that he was also a volunteer and he poured coffee on Sunday for the four services, etc. One thing he didn't hear tonight, as he watched people coming in, he was also a RV owner and they have at least two and sometimes four people coming in one vehicle, so while one person said there were 1 100 in and 1 100 out, that might be true in terms of people, but was not in terms of vehicles. He said that many were snowbirds and they arrive with two people or four, five or even six in pickup trucks, vans and motor homes. He wanted to add that to the record. He said there weren't 2200 cars coming in and out at the same time. MR. JACK SPEAR, 26 Presidio Place in Palm Desert, said that he wanted to address parking because it hadn't come up. He stated that they have one way traffic and as people go out others come in and it worked quite smoothly. � � � 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � MR. BOB HOFFMAN, 6 Alfaro in Rancho Mirage, stated that he believed the issue here was building the building. He asked why they were building this building. He thought the reason became evident when the church was overflowing and there were so many activities that they all couldn't be held within the church and there were a couple of activities that were held outside. As they went into church that morning, they felt it was an offense. He thought that the fathers of the church were reacting to that. The building they were talking about was proposed to be quite a distance from residential construction. He believed it was 200 feet and asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell concurred. Mr. Spear said that the building would contain the noise and offense that the neighbors expressed. Also, he wanted to state that he has a different parking system. He was an engineer and they liked to go there right when the church service starts--that meant that everyone that was going to leave had left and there was always parking available right up front. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the � proposal. MRS. EMILY RICHARDS, spouse of Jim Richards who was mentioned earlier, 4840 Avenida Estrada in Palm Desert, stated that she wanted to be certain that the other nine points that the staff considered as important aspects of this in order for it to be improved were not overlooked. She stated that her biggest concern as a neighbor of the church was that she had been hopeful that her neighbor would be a good citizen. She felt this application in and of itself was an indication of their lack of thinking about the effect on the neighborhood. The application as submitted did not reference the height of the building, it did not speak about air conditioning, it did not speak to a landscape plan, and it did not speak of exterior lighting. That was why she believed that these conditions were absolutely imperative. Their experience unfortunately with this church has been that when they have indicated difficulties or problems, that certain things have been represented to them and then in execution those things did not happen. Specifically, this related to an electrical outlet that was installed. The church was told by staff that they were not to use it because it was not approved and a parishioner previous to that Sunday indicated that it would not be used and that Sunday it was used with an amplifier pointed at the row of houses. She was not concerned that she lives � next to a church. Her feeling was that they would be a very good 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 neighbor. She personally, and her husband, were not particulariy concerned about the traffic problem on Sunday. They moved next to a church and assumed that people wouid be there Sunday and Saturday nights and that there would be some associated traffic with that but it was very important to her that the commission understand that these other requirements were necessary because, unfortunately, they have not had a good experience in dealing with the church with them being truly concerned with the neighbors. She also wanted to clarify condition #10. She said that what often happens is that there are youth events at the church at night, which she felt was great and it was . a very important thing and she did the same at her church when she was young, but at her church it was very clear that when they left the building they were to try and be as courteous as possible if it was late at night or very early in the morning if they were going on a trip. It was encouraged by the leaders and pastors that they be as quiet as possible .and that they did not hang around the parking lot, that they wouldn't stay for long periods of time and that they were quiet with the neighbors. She also had leaders in that church who made sure they were all gone from the parking lot before they left for the evening. That was not the experience here. She thanked the Commission for their � time and appreciated staff taking the time to consider some of the difficulties they have had. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mrs. Richards had obviously read the ten mitigation measures proposed by staff. He indicated that condition #4 was somewhat irrelevant to her, so if they ended up with one hour, half an hour or 15 minutes between services, he didn't see that was a major issue in her mind. Mrs. Richards said it was not. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mrs. Richards felt a sense of comfort in having the other nine mitigation measures and if that would in fact ameliorate some of the problems she has been experiencing. Mrs. Richards stated that she felt a sense of comfort to the extent that they have agreed that these are things that need to be done, but the proof was in the pudding. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were done, if they would go some ways towards remedying the problems. Mrs. Richards replied absolutely, but they needed to be done. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that the proof was in the CUP. Mrs. Richards stated that at 10:00 p.m., unfortunately, they were the ones who had to make the phone calls. Chairperson Ferguson noted that Mrs. Richards mentioned that landscaping, lighting, and air conditioning wasn't addressed, but he saw that it was in the conditions. Mrs. Richards clarified that the conditions address those issues, but the proposal from the church didn't. Chairperson Ferguson said that was why the planning staff was here to review these things. Mrs. Richards stated � that she was very pleased with the staff conditions. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the request was to be approved tonight and followed to the letter, and 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � he saw no evidence of bad faith, but he had also been involved in organizations with 5,000 people and it was hard to hold everyone strictly accountable, but assuming they followed to the letter the 1 1 conditions, he asked if she had opposition to this application. Mrs. Richards said that if they follow nine of those ten items, she did not. Chairperson Ferguson noted that item number 6 allowed the Planning Commission continuing jurisdiction to review this at any time and he hoped that Mrs. Richards and others who were concerned would call the city and the city would meet with the church and they would sit down and see if there is a problem. That was their role and the enforcement they talked about earlier. Mrs. Richards said that was a piece of . her comfort and she wanted to be on record to say so. Commissioner Jonathan added that Mrs. Richards didn't even have to go an indirect route. That was what the public hearing session for non-agendized items was for and they were here, they all heard her and she was on record and if she experienced problems, she was free to come directly back to the lectern at any time to tell the commission that there is a problem and then they would go about resolving it. MS. MARIETTA SCHICK, the property owner at 40-780 Avenida Estrada, stated that she was in the process of escrow and now her buyers awakened one morning and saw the water well digger at about � 20 feet high and the persistent noise was giving the potential buyer cause to not to want to go ahead with the purchase. She said there was an old saying that you can't defeat city hall, but that was part of her earnings and she was trying to sell that property. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he appreciated her concern, but explained that the crane had nothing to do with this application. Ms. Schick said that she knew that, but the fact that the building was there and stated that she was also a member of the church, but right now she was torn because of lack of revenue coming in on her part and it was really a problem. Traffic never bothered her when she was living there. She sold the house and they were in the house now and escrow was supposed to close in June. She said it would be hard for her to wait 18 months to move the property again. She thought it was a concern. Chairperson Ferguson asked how approving or denying this application would change the crane situation. Ms. Schick said it wouldn't. Chairperson Ferguson asked what her concerns were if they approved this building and if she thought it would have a detrimental effect on her property value. Ms. Schick said it would, although she realized the children needed to be taken care of and she taught school for many years so she knew all the reasons, but she felt it was terribte when these things came up and it was a concern in the neighborhood and for the neighbors. She said that people would think twice about purchasing her house and it was a tough situation. � 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 MR. JERRY WYLEE, 40-900 Avenida Estrada, informed commission that he and his wife moved down here last year and they enjoyed Palm Desert and their home. When they purchased their home there one of the reasons they bought their home in Palm Desert rather than in Rancho Mirage was because of the view behind their property. He said they have a beautiful view, including the church, and they have a lot of mountains behind them and his concern was not so much the parking, although if it got worse it could be an issue, but at the present time it was a non issue with him. His concern was the height of the building to be placed behind their property. Mr. Drell said that the height would be 18 feet, which is the same height as would be approved for a single family home. He said his view would be far more effected when that property is developed with homes because then they would have homes 20 feet from that back wall, but it would be the height of a single family home at the peak. Mr. Wylee asked if it was correct that the buildings would be 200 feet from the fence line. Mr. Drell said it would be built against the eastern side of the property, north of the shade structure and volleyball courts. Mr. Wylee asked how far the buildings would come down Via Estrada. Mr. Drell said they would be situated toward the back of the property. Mr. Wylee asked if it would start at the rear of the property. Mr. � Drell invited Mr. Wylee to come forward to review the plans. It was clarified that there was only one building being proposed. Mr. Drell said the building would be about mid-way. Mr. Wylee asked if there would be building over the parking spaces. Mr. Drell replied no, but anticipated that there would be buildings there when it is developed as a residential subdivision. Mr. Wylee stated that it was his understanding that the building would be in the parking area or partial parking area which could cause additional problems, but it looked like it would be located to the north and asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said it was mid-way between the property line on the south to the north, but on the east side of the five acres closer to the existing church. Mr. Wylee stated that with this new information he learned this evening, he would have no objection to the parking or the building structure there, but wanted to bring to the Commission's attention that even though the 18 months was a short period of time, he hoped that Southwest would not be here again asking for more changes to the conditional use and that they would be moving. Mr. Moore readdressed the Commission and stated that all of the complaints were program related and the nine issues seemed to deal with those complaints and they had every intention of complying with those. He said that one of the difficulties is that sometimes 100 high school students or more would show up on their own and they tried to .� control those things, but if tell each other to meet at the church, that is something they couldn't foresee. Since all of the nine issues deal 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � with ail of the issues here and none of their neighbors were concerned about the parking and they meet the legal issues of the parking and the time frame for the services is their only concern from all of their proposals, he would just say that this has been a very beneficial thing and hoped they could approve the request this evening. Commissioner Beaty commented that there were some other issues that don't have anything to do with landscaping, traffic and parking, but just controlling noise and activity. Now that all of these people have been exposed to these issues, he hoped it wouldn't be a problem in the future. Chairperson Ferguson noted that he saw a hand up, but indicated that the rebuttal period was limited to the applicant, although he would invite the person to make a brief comment even though it was out of the Commission's historical order. MR. ROLAND DOFENAY, 40-905 Centennial Circle on the east side of the church, stated that five years ago when they moved there it was a nice, quiet church. He appreciated that they were doing a nice job, but he felt they never got down to the parking situation. He said he wished the Commission would go there on a Sunday morning and try to even � find a place to park on Hovley Lane. They lived on Centennial Circle and he said they have a difficult time getting out of their street on Sunday morning. So far he didn't think they had settled anything. He didn't care about the building being put up and thought it would be very nice, but he said they would lose some more parking spaces. He said that people were parking on the street and on everyone else's street and that was a problem they hadn't even solved yet. Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for comments by the Commission. Commissioner Jonathan thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and using their personal/family time. He felt that Mrs. Richards' concerns appealed to him in terms of their objectivity and he thought they were quite rational. He was impressed that her concerns seemed to be allayed by the nine mitigations placed on the application. He was also convinced in his own analysis that those nine mitigations would go a long way towards curing any potential problems and was confident that they would be adhered to. He personally did not see a need to place restriction #4. He thought it was a good idea but was persuaded that the 15 minute turn around as stated by their parking expert worked. He stated that he would move for approval of the application subject to all of the mitigation measures with the exception of #4. Chairperson � Ferguson asked if Commissioner Jonathan would hold his motion until the 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 other commissioners had a chance to make their comments. Commissioner Jonathan felt it was appropriate to have a motion and/or a second and to then continue with comments. Chairperson Ferguson noted that there might be an alternative motion. Chairperson Ferguson said he would accept the motion and asked for a second. There was no second and Chairperson Ferguson said they would continue with the discussion. Commissioner Campbell stated that she lives on Hovley Lane in Hovley Court and she said she goes to work on Sundays and sometimes she had a difficult time getting out of her gate, but she said the wait was usually only two or . three minutes. She didn't really have a problem with it and where she lives she really didn't hear any noise from the church and as far as the conditions of approval were concerned, she was in favor of them as long as they were contingent until September 30, 1998 and that the building would then be removed and the church would be relocated. Commissioner Beaty seconded Commissioner Jonathan's compliments and was glad to see everyone in attendance and said they were a very well behaved group of people. He said the commission members were essentially volunteers also, although they were paid a token, and he hoped they listened � to the concerns and would do everything in their power to be better neighbors � than some people think they are and he was in favor of the proposal. ;,,� Chairperson Ferguson stated that he too was very impressed with Mrs. Richards' comments and he wanted to use her comments since Mr. Richards was identified as being one of the more vocal critics of the church. He felt that when they actually get into situations like this with their neighbors that they were not as mean spirited as some might think and he didn't think that the residents thought the church was as unreasonable as maybe they had perceived. He thought it was a matter of mutual respect and he said, with some trepidation, that there was no amount of good that the church could do that would warrant disregarding their neighbors'. He noted that the church is an overwhelming success, but the reason they focused on parking was their neighbors deserved respect and he thought the comments expressed by the opponents were as follows: Mrs. Richards stated that if they followed the compliance of these conditions she didn't have a problem or a problem with elimination of condition 4; Mrs. Schick unfortunately had property value problems associated with a crane that has nothing to do with this application; and Mr. Wylee had concerns about a view easement which doesn't exist at law and the visual impairment would be worse with the subdivision that goes in there. He said that he took a look at the letters for the last gentleman that spoke, and noted that there was a problem in terms of egress onto Monterey. � He believed that had been addressed by the addition of an officer on Monterey very recently. He was also pleased to hear that the church had gone to four 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � services real recently and their parking expert was probably the most important for him to hear from because he has been out there and to have four to eight people out there orderly moving people in and out at least convinced him to let them work with four services. Again, what they were talking about here, if Dave Moore's comments were accurate, they would be going to four services in February and ending after Easter and they were only talking about eight weeks. He noted that they only had two more weeks of four services and he didn't get the feeling from any of the testimony or the letters that parking was a problem any other time of the year. So what they were looking at was an 18-month extension. In terms of the parking it was an eight week problem . that will occur next year, if not during the next couple of weeks, and he was mindful of item number 6 and he wanted to state for the record, because if this comes back, that would be why it comes back. The Planning Commission may review this approval at any time. If there is evidence of continuing problems involving compliance o� with the effectiveness of the conditions, which, meant that if there is a problem, and the philosophy he discussed earlier was that they would deal with problems when they become problems and wouldn't try and anticipate them if they won't be, and would come back at that time. At this point he said he would second Commissioner Jonathan's motion. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the motion was no longer on the table, but if they were now ready, he would try the motion again. �► Chairperson Ferguson noted that the motion was subject to conditions 1 through 3 and 5 through 1 1 . Mr. Drell noted that there was an 1 1 th condition in the draft resolution that didn't relate to any of these problems, but to a mitigation measure that should have been dealt with when the church turfed the lot. In this particular area the church turfed over the habitat of an endangered species and there was a mitigation fee that is now due. He said it would be approximately 53000 that goes to buy a preserve north of I-10 for the Fringe Toed Lizard and it was part of federal law, so they had no choice. Chairperson Ferguson asked if it had been agreed to by the applicant. Mr. Drell said it the condition occurred to him late in the process that in order for them to comply with the federal endangered species act that was required. Action: Moved - by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Ferguson, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Ferguson, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1793, approving CUP 91-8 Amendment, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0. A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 9:20 P.M. CHAIRPERSON FERGUSON RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 9:27 P.M. � 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 $ � _� � E. Case Nos. GPA 97-1, C/Z 97-3, ZOA 97-2 and ZOA 97-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of 1) A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; 2) Project Area 4 Specific Plan; 3) Change of zone implementing recommendations of the Specific Plan; and 4) Amendments to Chapter 25.14 of the Zoning Ordinance for the RE (Residential Estate Zone) and Chapter 25.76 for Nonconforming Lots, Buildings and Uses as recommended by the Specific Plan. Mr. Drell stated that this is a specific plan and study dealing with the area which was annexed in 1994 including the Palm Desert Country Club and surrounding country clubs and other residential and commercial areas. At the time it was annexed the City basically adopted the existing, or to the best of our knowledge, adopted the existing County zoning with the understanding that we would do a comprehensive study of areas which we knew were in some dispute and would go through a process of rezoning or making those zoning designations more appropriate at the time. This was now that time. In October 1995 a citizens advisory committee was created where they attempted to get representatives from all the various neighborhoods and they have been meeting on a monthly basis ever since to try and come up with both � a recommendation involving redevelopment activity in that this was also a redevelopment project area and to address some of the outstanding land use and traffic issues. The issues of specific concern to the Planning Commission were the land use issues and they primarily involved the area at the northwest corner of Washington and Fred Waring extending up to Dudley and over to Warner Trail. The reason this was the area of main concern was that most of the rest of the study area was master planned residential communities in which while there were some circulation issues and some property maintenance issues, there weren't land use issues. This one area dated back prior to any of those master planned developments and was primarily an area of acre lots which under the County zoning that the City adopted was zoned for 9,000 square foot lots and there had been some subdivision in the past under the County dividing these acre lots into four and there was a clear expressed desire of the neighborhood to preserve the unique residential character and therefore in the areas of Robin Road, Mountain View and Delaware the plan recommends zoning this area with the RE (Real Estate) 40,000 zone to preserve that existing acre pattern. In essence, recognizing the existing subdivision. Secondly, on Fred Waring on the corner at Washington all the way up Washington to a depth of approximately 300 feet there was currently multifamily zoning. On the corner right now was a developed office project, a mixture of either vacant properties, there were two ; apartment projects, a school and a church, another office building and the � 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � consensus of the committee was that this area, with the exception of a 20 ac�e vacant parcel, should be rezoned to Office Professional as that would be the most appropriate land use for a major arterial such as Washington Street. He said there was one large vacant nine acre parcel which is zoned R-1 9,000 and there was a lot of discussion among the committee whether to make this property more compatible with the acre lots or more compatible with the adjacent Desert Breezes, which is about four or five units per acre. It was determined that the appropriate zoning would be to stay R-1 9,000 single family development. The actual owner of the property requested or consented that they were not interested in any other use on the frontage which is zoned . multifamily and therefore requested that the entire property be rezoned or retained at R-1 9,000. The last area of some discussion had to do with the area around Dudley which is in the north part of this area. There was an apartment project on the south side of Dudley, office on the north side of Dudley, behind those are four lots, three of which are zoned multifamily and there was a fourth lot that was wedged behind Palm Desert Country Club which at one time under the County was zoned multifamily but due to a simplicity of map drawing at the County, they drew a straight line instead of a jogged line and rezoned it for single family, but it is isolated from any other single family development. Consistent with what the committee felt was the long term most logical use, staff was recommending the Professional Office �.• zone and he had a petition signed by residents on Cardiff, which is a cul-de-sac directly to the south and west of this area, supporting the Professional Office zone contingent upon certain development standards they would like to see listed as numbers one through six. He said that at the present time they were not looking at a specific development. Language in the specific plan stipulated that any project back there would incorporate all the vacant parcels and in terms of a precise plan would take into account the compatibility of all the adjacent uses. He felt this was one of the more compatible locations for an office building, but due to some grading designs in Palm Desert Country Club there was about a 10-12 foot block wall that separates this potential office project from the residential project and the office would be significantly lower. They were asking for some landscaping conditions which the commission would take note of when a precise plan is proposed. Again, those were the zone changes and it was his understanding that at this point in time there was general consensus as to the appropriateness of those changes. He said there has been a concern expressed by the owner of the apartment project directly south of Dudley over the situation of being created a legal non-conforming use as a result of the rezoning. Mr. Drell explained that there was a state government code section which prohibits the City from damaging multifamily projects in this way without providing a remedy and the Zoning Ordinance does contain a remedy generally for non-conforming properties to achieve conforming status that currently only applies to residential projects in residential zones. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 97-3, which is attached to � � 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � :� � back of the commission's acket would extend that conformance rocess � the p , P to multifamily projects in Office Professional zones. Both of the muitifamily projects that they would be making legal non-conforming as a result of the change of zone were well maintained good projects that he had no doubt would qualify for the program and would achieve conforming status as a result. Lastly, relative to the changes of zone, he explained that there was a neighborhood meeting of all the owners of the acre parcels relative to their unique desires for their neighborhood. People moved there as a result of the rural character and they wanted to preserve it. One of the features that attracted some people was the ability to raise horses or keep horses. Palm . Desert's current residential zoning and RE zone does not allow this and therefore there was an amendment proposed to the RE zone dealing with a few issues which came up at that meeting. One dealt with home occupations. As a result of the rural lifesty�e, staff was adding green houses and horticultural collections as a permitted use in the zone. They were allowing under home occupations that they be permitted to be performed in an accessory structure which under the existing ordinance they cannot and it allows it in an area up to 640 square feet. It increases the size of a commercial vehicle that could be parked on the property and allows one employee to park their vehicle on the subject property for the purposes of ; driving one of those commercial vehicles and it created a section for the � regulation of horses. It created a non-discretionary process by which anyone ,� who chooses to raise horses applies, gets a permit, and in essence agrees to the following set of regulations: they were limited to two mature horses on each 40,000 square feet or larger parcel and they could have up to two foals until such time as they are under nine months of age for a maximum of four horses of all ages. He said the section created parameters for corrals, it created a setback of the corral from the houses. He said that Chairperson Ferguson might note that at ZORC there was a suggested change to that condition relative to the 35 foot setback from the corral to the residence on the property. Mr. Drell said he attempted to call the health department to see if they had any reason for that and the Project Area Committee still felt that condition was still appropriate to be placed on the property and that it was still a good idea to keep the horses some distance from habitable buildings. He was suggesting that they keep it and see how it works. He said the section would also regulate sanitary conditions relative to the disposal of animal manure to make sure there wasn't dust, flies or odors as a result of keeping these horses. It provides that orderly, controlled keeping of horses should not adversely impact those who don't keep horses. The most significant t�affic recommendation as proposed by this plan also deals with Delaware and Mountain View which up to this point has been a dirt road. They were now in the process of paving them as part of a dust control grant that they received � :� from AQMD. One of the things that came out of their meeting was a concem � by the residents that with the opening up of these roads, these streets provide � 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � potential opportunities for cut-through traffic of people going to Washington and desiring to avoid the intersection at Fred Waring and using this as a shortcut to get to Warner Trail. From their point of view, any increase in traffic would be unacceptable given their desire to maintain their quiet, rural character. His understanding was that the Public Works Department would be installing, at least on a temporary basis, barriers 300 feet in at the boundary between the p�ofessional office zone on Washington and the residential area to prevent access from Washington to this area. They would see if it created a problem and ultimately they would have to provide provision for emergency vehicles if this turned out to be a permanent solution and some sort of gated . structure that emergency vehicles have access to. The City received a petition from those property owners in support of that idea and it was 'his understanding that it would be implemented. He asked if the commission had any questions about any item in the specific plan. He said that staff distributed some amendments for some changes to the first draft that commission received. They dealt principally with the Dudley area. There were some discussions back and forth on how the City would deal with the zoning issue and based on the petition and comments from the people on Cardiff, the amended pages the Commission had reflected the recommendation relative to the rezoning of Professional Office. `� Commissioner Campbell asked who would monitor how often the corrals would be cleaned for the keeping of horses. Mr. Drell replied that the neighbors would monitor it. He said that he used to live in an area that had horses and he cleaned stables for a while and it would be a challenge. Part of what people accepted when they live in the country was that there were some flies, but that was part of the joy of country living. To the greatest extent possible, based on citizen complaint the City would get maximal compliance. Commissioner Campbell asked if that pertained also to dogs or other animals. Mr. Drell said that the current animal control ordinance applied to the keeping of dogs. He said there was an existing licensing procedure and through the abatement of public nuisances, they have gone and done abatements against people who were keeping a lot of dogs and creating all sorts of problems. Commissioner Campbell asked if someone had a problem, if they could just complain to city hall. Mr. Drell concurred and said that in essence this was just a license and if they could demonstrate a consistent disregard for these regulations, then they could revoke the license. Chairperson Ferguson o�ened the public hearing and asked if anyone from the Project Area 4 Committee wished to make any comments. They did not and Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the proposal. �ir. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � MR. RICK CLARK 74-425 Goleta, stated that he owns some ro ert � , P p Y on Mountain View and one thing that needed to be said that was seldom said that he hears was that when that area was originally going to be annexed by Palm Desert they had a lot of concerns which they came and expressed to the city. He felt the city has lived up to every one of them. The city met them all and dealt with them and he was happy with the way it worked out. He said that on the 40,000 square foot area that in a lot of the area they have these houses in back of the property where he has his Mom and Dad live in the winter time. He said that he would be building a house out front and wanted to know . how the RE requirement effected the house he would build out front. He wanted to know how that was going to be regulated and if it was because they were allowed only one meter. Mr. Drell stated that there were two different solutions. One was a guest house,which were permitted as accessory structures and those were permitted as a.matter of right if they don't have a kitchen. If they do have a kitchen or if they were planning to have two dwelling units on the property, as required by state law from about ten years ago, they have a conditional use permit process that allows "granny flats" or senior second homes. As a conditional § use they have to provide parking for it and they had to rent it out to those over � the age of 60. That was a process they would have to go through to get the ,,,� second unit. He said this was one the commission might want to consider at the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee because when this was done it was done in a very restrictive manner and as it is now written, that unit has to be attached to the main dwelling. These were built on 10,000 square foot lots and it would probably be appropriate to allow in this zone that the second senior unit be detached given the size of the lots. He felt they should be making that amendment in the zoning ordinance review process or they could add that amendment to the RE zone now. Commissioner Jonathan suggested adding it here now. Mr. Drell stated that it would be an amendment to the RE zone as already advertised to provide an exception to Chapter 25.21 Second Unit Senior Housing as it applies to this zone to permit detached second senior units. Mr. Clark thanked staff and the commission. MR. EMMANUEL McDOWELL, 4256 Cardiff, stated that he was present representing the residents on Cardiff Street. They were present and he hoped the commission received a copy of their statement and they were glad to see this come through. They didn't want multifamily apartments behind them. `3 � 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � MR. RAYMOND HILL stated that he was the owner of three parcels that Mr. Drell noted that were on Dudley Drive and he submitted a letter and he was here prior to the annexation. There was one parcel that Mr. Drell referred to that kind of got "lined out" which when he bought it in 1975 it was zoned R-3 2,000. He said that he more or less came forward to receive a point of clarification. He asked if Mr. Drell said that someone in the apartments complained and there was some kind of solution to the problem. Mr. Drell explained that the gentleman on Dudley was concerned about . becoming a legal non-conforming use as a result of the zone change. He said that Mr. Hill was technically legal non-conforming as well, but this would allow a process by which property owners who take good care of their residential property could be deemed legal conforming through a process of review by the Architectural Review Commission. Mr. Hill stated that his understanding was that the motion was that his three parcels would become Office Professional. Mr. Drell concurred, and the Office Professional would extend along all that frontage area on Washington Street, with the exception of one spot. Mr. Hill thanked him and stated that he supported the proposal. MS. TERRY HAMILTON, a resident of La Quinta Cove, stated that she �. owns property on Mountain View and had a couple of questions regarding some of the things that were done during the meeting with the residents. She asked what was decided on sewers. Mr. Drell stated that it was classified as a low priority. Ms. Hamilton asked for confirmation that when the streets are paved at this point, the sewers would not be added. Mr. Drell concurred. Ms. Hamilton asked about curbs and gutter. Mr. Drell stated that those were also not considered to be high priorities. Ms. Hamilton asked about the barrier 300 feet in from Washington Street. She noted that Mr. Drell mentioned access for emergency vehicles and asked if he was anticipating any type of gated access for the residents. Mr. Drell replied that was an issue that perhaps the Traffic Engineer could comment on. Mr. Greenwood stated that the California Vehicle Code prohibits local jtxisdictions from operating �gates for access of some, but not all, on public streets so it would not be gated. Ms. Hamilton asked for confirmation that this would be a permanent barrier and people who live on the east end of Mountain View and Delaware would have to go a long way. Mr. Drell said that they were installing this for a trial period and the neighborhood would have to weigh the inconvenience of the barriers relative to the tranquility. Ms. Hamilton concurred. MR. TIM BARTLETT, 73-382 Salt Cedar in Palm Desert, said that they � were rather late into this project. They met with the Project Area 4 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � Committee 30 days ago and again yesterday. He said they were actually proposing a project that was right in the middle of the project area and they apologized for their tardiness and to the committee members who have worked very hard for the last year to come up with a lot of great suggestions. They were in support of their recommendations, although they haven't made a formal application yet because they just legally came under contract on Friday. What they wanted to show the commission was a slight discrepancy in the 9,000 foot lot dimension and it was a two percent discrepancy on a very small number of lots. He asked if he could explain for when they� do appear , before the commission with their project. He said this involved a 20 acre lot just north of Desert Breezes south of Mountain View. Chairperson Ferguson asked who Mr. Bartlett was representing. Mr. Bartlett replied Lance Alacano, who was planning to purchase the �property and who has a substantial deposit to acquire that 20 acre parcel just north of Desert Breezes. Mr. Bartlett explained that Mr. Alacano planned to develop this project as all single family residential and the current zoning was multifamily on Washington with R-1 9,000. � Chairperson Ferguson asked how the project was proposed to be developed. � Mr. Bartlett said it would be developed as single family residential. He noted there was multifamily on Washington with R-1 9,000. Their average lot size would be 9,066 square feet, but they did have some lots in the interior of the development that were actually 2% less than 9,000, which was 8,800 square feet. They knew the 9,000 rule was a very hard, fast 9,000 or die, but they just wanted to present their case about why they would like to have a 2% variance at some point if it was necessary on some of the interior lots. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Bartlett was asking for an amendment to the current change of zone to allow their development to go forward. Mr. Bartlett said that would be ideal. They met with the Project Area 4 Committee yesterday for the second time and caught them off guard and didn't give them a lot of time to respond, so they would love to propose that tonight but didn't want to oppose any of the work they have done for the last year or so. Bottom line he said they wanted to get their project approved with some of the interior lots at 8,850 square feet. That was a 2% variance from the R-1 9,000 and if they averaged � all the lot sizes together, they were greater than 9,000. He said there were a number of things they were doing to the benefit of their 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � surrounding neighbors. One of those was protecting the character of the one acre lots that Robin Road currently enjoys. He said they have some very nice homes on some one acre lots. He felt that about 20% of those lots were actually vacant, but what the City had done was vacate a portion of the existing road that connects to Mountain View and that created a cul-de-sac that was longer than 500 feet and by fire department regulations was too long for emergency access vehicles. He said there was a fire block in front. What the committee asked them to do and what staff recommended was to build a cul-de-sac at the end of that road. This was a public improvement on public land and they . have asked the developer of this parcel to pay for that. Essentially he was paying for public improvements and he was willing to do that, but essentially he was restricting his own access by providing a cul-de-sac for his own neighbors, which he has agreed to do. He just wanted to point that out. His homeowners would have to enter and exit from Washington, but they were willing to do that. He said they were also mitigating a serious stormwater and nuisance water problem. He indicated that for most of the Palm Desert Country Club area, most of the water comes down Warner Trail, down Robin Road and dumps on this property. Mr. Alacano has worked with Public Works and was mitigating that nuisance water through his entire site into a retention � area on Washington. He would have a 60 foot buffer off of Washington, pulling his homes back with a landscaped area to mitigate some of the retention area and mitigate some of the sound and noise for his residents. He would be undergrounding the utilities and there was a utility line that runs across the whole northern edge of the property which actually serves the property owners to the north. Southern California Edison and the City's mandate is to underground utilities so he would be undergrounding utilities that would actually be serving the neighbor to the north. � Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was sorry to interrupt, but he was getting lost conceptually because they were considering a specific project and they were here to consider something completely different. He said that if they were going to discuss a specific project, he didn't think this was the right time or place for that. If he was suggesting that the R-1 9,000 zoning be changed to R-1 8,800 then the point needed to be made more generally for this specific application. Mr. Bartlett apologized and said he wanted to make the commission aware of the project that would be 2% delinquent in the 9,000 foot zone. � 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 Commissioner Jonathan said he wanted to respond to that issue in general `� since it seemed that Mr. Bartlett was after a feeling from the commission. Mr. Bartlett indicated that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he has been one of the bigger sticklers to the R-1 10,000 size and if they were going to come to the commission with a nice project that has a few lots that were 200 feet under, he personally would not object to a nice project just because of that especially when the average was over 9,000. That was his input. Chairperson Ferguson asked if he would then have to meet the findings under a variance which would have to be exceptional hardship. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they have given all sorts of variances. Chairperson . Ferguson stated that they had to be supported by findings. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that was what he was saying. If the project was acceptable in other respects, they have made findings in the past. Mr. Drell stated that on the other hand, a change of zone could be granted in conjunction with his application. The designation in the specific plan was ranged between three and five units per acre in which 8,800 square foot lots would fall. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Alacano if what they discussed earlier would get them 9,000 square foot lots. MR. LANCE ALACANO, 42-335 Washington Street in Palm Desert, said , they didn't know that for a fact yet. He met with Mr. Gaugush this � morning and they briefly discussed having this community gated with private streets on the interior. They would more than likely have more than 9,000 square foot lots. The reason for the variance right now was because they started off with public streets which were 56 feet wide and they would be reduced to 50. He hoped that would allow for the 9,000 square foot lots without a change of zone. He said that the worst case scenario would be that they would have 12 lots with 8,800 square feet. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he understood all the stigma associated with seeking a variance after just approving 9,000 square foot lots, but if they were seeking a sense of the commission, he agreed with Commissioner Jonathan that it was inappropriate to consider a plan that they haven't seen and was concep�ual and that the applicants were apparently still putting together which would muddle up a one-year process and thousands of hours of deliberation. He was just saying that tonight was not the time, but they would be receptive of it. MS. CINDY FINERTY, 43-592 Via Badalona, said that they started the specific plan in October of 1995. On January 10 they received a fax from the owners requesting a 30 day extension on the specific plan � which the committee granted. January 30 the owner of the property requested the R-1 9,000 zoning all the way to Washington Street and 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � that was granted. Mr. Alacano entered the picture in February and they met with him and he came to their committee meeting. They appointed a subcommittee meeting to resolve the issues on Robin Road, which they have done. Then she received a phone call from Tim Bartlett saying that they wanted them to change the R-1 9,000 to R-1 8,000. The committee voted unanimously to hold firm at the R-1 9,000 since they felt they had compromised in a fair and reasonable manner on all of the other changes that Mr. Alacano was requesting. She said there was a process and the process was that Mr. Alacano would file an application accompanied by a change of zone and a tract map. Right _ now this was early in design and it changed on a daily basis. The process would be for him to comply with what the City has set forth and then it would come before the Project Area 4 Committee and they would evaluate it. They let Mr. Alacano and Mr. Bartlett know that their subcommittee was more than willing to meet with them to resolve other issues regarding his project. They felt it was basically a good project and would like to see it work and they have the best intentions, but she felt it was inappropriate for their comments here tonight. Chairperson Ferguson noted that she was saying that they were not opposed to it, but they were asking for too much, too late in the game and there were � procedures that they could take as an alternate route and if the R-1 8,000 came before the committee, they weren't opposed to it, but they should go through the procedures, give them a map to review, receive public comment and have time to study it. Ms. Finerty concurred. She noted that as Commissioner Jonathan eloquently alluded to, he didn't like something given to him at 4:00 p.m. and then was asked to vote on it. Yesterday morning at 8:30 a.m. Ms. Finerty said she received a phone call after having waited three weeks for plans and all of a sudden yesterday morning they appeared and Mr. Bartlett dropped them off at her place of employment and she had other people come to look at them. They came to their committee meeting and wanted them to make a decision then. They were not comfortable at that time having this dumped on them. They wanted to be fair, but there were rules to be followed. Chairperson Ferguson said that he didn't think it was an issue of fairness, but that the applicant was trying to take advantage of timing and it was a little too late. Mr. Bartlett apologized, but stated that he thought they would get into trouble if they came to the commission a month from now. He thought the commission would ask why they weren't part of this process now. Chairperson Ferguson felt it was a point well taken. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to this proposal. � 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 MR. JIM JONES, the property owner of the apartment house on Dudiey Drive, stated that between he and his partner they wrote about three letters and asked if the commission received them. Mr. Drell stated that they were the ones that were handed out today from Palm Desert Palms. Chairperson Ferguson confirmed that he had all three of them. Mr. Jones stated that he was disturbed about this process because several meetings had been conducted where they discussed their . property and they were not even at the meetings and no one even advised them. He said he lives locally and was readily available and was at the property fairly often. There was no secret about where he lives, or what his phone number is or anything else about him. He was very easy to reach, yet no one bothered to reach him to discuss , anything about this at all. The first he heard about this was when they received the notice of the public hearing in the mail. Chairperson Ferguson asked when he received that notice. , Mr. Jones replied that it was about three weeks ago. At that point he � went to see Mr. Drell and reviewed the file. That was when he found out that several meetings had been conducted and surveys had been taken and opinions had been received on what should happen to this area, but they were never contacted. He said that concerned them. He was very concerned or he would not be p�esent at the meeting. He saw Mr. Drell about three times and they wrote those letters. Chairperson Fe�guson said that since they just received the letters tonight and since Mr. Jones had now gone through the application, he asked what his objections were. Mr. Jones stated that their concern was that they had a 40 unit apartment house/town houses and it had high occupancy. They collected about 92% of scheduled rent, which is very high and they had 12 people move last year, which was virtually 100% occupancy in their business. He said they operated an essential business furnishing housing. He said that it was in the public interest that they were there. They had high occupancy and their rents were very reasonable so they were providing a service there. He realized that no one was asking them to tear down their building, but felt a rezone to an office use effected them. They had to refinance this building by July of 1999 and � their current lender would not finance this building again. This had nothing to do with the zoning, but because they were going out of the 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � apartment financing business. They had to refinance and when a lender looked at this, they were going to be in the wrong zone. This may or may not effect them and he had no idea because he was not a banker, but when they went to get financing they would look at this. Mr. Drell stated that this was a problem that they did encounter and that was why this particular zoning provision was created because it was brought to their attention ten years ago and they created this process by which they issued a document from the City after the applicant goes through a procedure and shows that he has a well maintained project and that document was . recorded on the property and specifically says that this is a legal conforming property and to his knowledge no property had been denied financing that has gone through this process. Mr. Jones said they were not talking about being denied financing; they would not be denied financing because they have the best credit there is--it was a matter of the cost of the financing. They didn't know if it would affect the cost. Mr. Drell said that what the lenders asked staff was whether this project was conforming to the ordinances of the city of Palm Desert and this document says yes, it is conforming. They asked if this place burned down if it could be replaced and staff says yes, if it burned down it could be replaced--it was conforming. Typically they were not interested in any details other than those two things. He was unaware of any `'�+ problems that have occurred with this ordinance. Mr. Jones said that he has been through this with Mr. Drell and he attempted to address this problem and he thanked him for that, but he was still uneasy about it. Chairperson Ferguson noted that Mr. Jones had three weeks in which to contact a lender to ask these questions and he only pointed this out because they were talking about over a year's worth of planning effort that has gone into this and they would discuss the issue of why he got noticed three weeks ago, but three weeks was three weeks. Mr. Jones felt that three weeks was not very long. Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Jones to direct his comments to specific objections other than his having an uneasy feeling. Mr. Jones stated that was a specific objection because it was a great concern to them. Another one was that one day they would go to sell the property and this may cloud the sale because this was not zoned correctly. He said it was nice to have a petition from the people who live on Cardiff as an example. He said that he could have gotten a petition from the 40 families that he looks after and he wouldn't have any problem at all getting that. He stated that he was just here two weeks ago for the first time before the commission and hoped it didn't become a habit and he came to them to address the concerns of the residents who live on the property because they care about the property and the people who live there. He could get financing, but if it was more expensive then the rents had to be higher. They have a concern about it the same as the other owners do. : If the rents are higher, perhaps their occupancy would not be as high as it is. � If they received the letter from the city and they would be legally conforming, 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 , , '� why not leave them alone because they are legally conforming now. He asked � why they are doing this to them to make them go through a whole process to make them legally conforming again. He asked that the zoning remain as it is and they would remain as they are. The gentleman who owns the property behind him just has a single family home and there was no project proposed for that location or on any of those properties. Why that couldn't be addressed at the time that the projects are proposed he couldn't understand. They would have no objections to an apartment on it or an office building as long as it was a reasonable project. They were happy when they were annexed to Palm Desert also and very happy when Dr. Kerrigan put his office . across the street, but he questioned why they were doing this when they are now legally conforming. He stressed that they were an existing business and had been there for about 1 1 years. He said that he posed some problems to Mr. Drell, but Mr. Drell didn't have a chance to get back to him and that was even if they obtained this legally conforming process, they were 1 1 separate buildings and if something happened to one of the buildings if they would be able to build it exactly as it is today. Mr. Drell stated that if Mr. Jones goes through this process, every building could burn down and he could replace them, although he didn't know if he would want to replace it exactly like it is today, but they could replace 40 units of apartments of the same size and , character. With this process they were under the Zoning Ordinance of the City � of Palm Desert as legally conforming as any other property in the city. The � problem is that in zoning, they weren't supposed to isolate one property and zone it differently than other properties in the same situation. Where they have an area where there is a mixture of different uses, that creates a problem and some by nature would be non-conforming. A determination on ultimate land use and that is the goal that the City points toward. There is a process and in the ten years of experience of using this process he has never heard of any damage to any multifamily property owner. He was unaware of any increased costs other than the cost of maintaining the property well, which he didn't believe Mr. Jones had a problem with. They couldn't isolate one property and zone it differently. Mr. Jones asked how long the process took to legally conform. Mr. Drell said that he looked at the property and it looked like it was in good condition to him. The process involved a meeting before the Architectural Commission and if he demonstrated that he has a well maintained project they could make a decision in one day. It was a matter of staff typing up the approval and the applicant getting it recorded. It could take as little as two or three weeks. He said that the commission could make the decision to isolate this one parcel and leave it multifamily, but typically that was not a good zoning practice. Mr. Jones stated that they would like to remain R-3 and couldn't see having to go through all of this process to remain the same. . 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Drell if he felt that Mr. Jones's case might warrant an exception although he made the statement that generally it was not good zoning practice to have an isolated exception to the zoning. Mr. Drell stated that realistically speaking the commission could do whatever they wanted as long as no one objects or sues them. He said that the City Attorney could provide some input if she wanted, but he didn't care one way or another. It was just that typically they learned in zoning school that . consistency of similar�y situated properties were zoned the same even though non-conforming uses were not unusual. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was an option for Mr. Jones if he ran into a real problem for whatever reason that he could come in and request a change of zone for only his property. Mr. Drell said that he could if he could demonstrate that he was actually damaged. Commissioner Jonathan said that Mr. Drell was saying that he could not foresee a situation where he might be damaged as a result of the change of zone. Mr. Drell stated that the City has processed at least a dozen of these requests and his understanding was that no one has come to the City afterwards and alleged that it has not been satisfactory. Commissioner Jonathan noted that it was not their intent to damage Mr. Jones in any way � so if that should occur for any reason, he does have an option available to come back to the commission or some other body to request a change of zone. Mr. Drell agreed and stated that in the text of the specific plan it specifically calls out that in their view well maintained apartments are perfectly compatible with well maintained offices and that it was not the intent of any of these things to create non conformance and that the goal was that all the existing properties would achieve conformance. He thought there was enough in the record that any lender could be satisfied that the City has no intent to damage these properties. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he was very impressed with the specific plan and the change of zone and commended the Project Area 4 Committee for commendable work. He was in favor of the application as stated. He wanted to specifically address Mr. Alacano. He hoped that Mr. Alacano understood that what happened here tonight was more timing and procedure than it was a reluctance of either Project Area 4 or this commission to consider a project by him. He said that he was familiar with some of his work and his wife was a huge fan. He would love to see Mr. Alacano do some development out there and would eagerly anticipate looking at an application, whether that came with a change of zone that they could consider or if they were able to get the gate and 9,000 square foot lots, the commission would welcome him. Mr. Alacano apologized and said that he just wanted to make everyone aware of the plans � they wanted to do in the near future. Chairperson Ferguson stated that the 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � last element dealt with Mr. Jones. He said that he has never been aware of a situation, as an attorney who practices in land use, of a detrimental effect occurring because in addition to being legally zoned to do exactly what they are doing now in perpetuity, they now had the option to go to Office Professional, which actually might enhance the value of his property if he ever wished to convert it or if he wanted to sell it, it gave him more options. He agreed with Commissioner Jonathan that if he could come back with a tangible detriment rather than a hypothetical one, they would be more than willing to make sure that they addressed it at that time and would not put him any worse off than he is now. He didn't think he was by the commission's action < tonight and if that were ever to come to pass, they were more than happy to take a look at it. Commissioner Campbell stated that from her attendance at several of the Project Area 4 Committee meetings, she knew they put a lot of work into the proposal. She felt they had done a very good job on it and were very conscientious. She was in favor of making the motion to approve. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Ferguson, :, approving the findings as presented by staff and adopting Planning � Commission Resolution No. 1974, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 97-1 , Project Area 4 Specific Plan. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Ferguson, approving the findings as presented by staff and adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 97-3. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairpersan Ferguson, approving the findings as presented by staff and adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1796, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 97-2 and ZOA 97-3 as amended. Carried 4-0. 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 � IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. REQUEST BY ST. MARGARET'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH FOR APPROVAL OF A THREE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION TO COMPLY WITH SECTIONS 26.40 AND 26.44 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION OF CURB AND GUTTER ON HIGHWAY 74. Mr. Drell explained that this was a project that was approved a while ago and they were conditioned to install curb and gutter and landscaping. There was . some confusion on the church's part in that they were originally going to build the project in three phases and would have had to do that in the third phase, which was going to be over five years and instead built the whole thing at once but thought they still had the time to do the other improvements. Based upon the City retaining an improvement bond, the City let them open waiting for them to do the improvements. The City sent them a letter stating that we were going to use their improvement bond if they didn't put in the improvements then discovered this confusion which was also complicated by the fact that they received a five year extension on utility undergrounding which they thought would conflict with these improvements, which they don't. The plan provides for the utilities to go between the curb and the "'�" sidewalk. There is an existing asphalt curb and the Public Works Department believes that the asphalt curb functions well and the applicant has agreed to install the landscaping and sidewalk within 45 days of plan approval and they would do the curb in three years. Functionally this would satisfy the City's short-term goals. Chairperson Ferguson asked for any questions. There being none he asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, granting, by minute motion, a three-year time extension of the curb and gutter requirement contingent upon completion of landscaping and sidewalk within 45 days of plan approval by the Department of Public Works. Carried 4-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (March 12, 1997) Mr. Drell said that they were considering, and the committee endorsed, a plan to build a roller hockey arena and a skateboard facility in the area now occupied by the dog park by the charging station and they would � move the dog park over to the area between the entrance and the corp. 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � MARCH 18, 1997 yard. They also reviewed replacing and upgrading the trees in the City's parking lot. B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (March 18, 1997) Commissioner Beaty stated that they discussed green fees and in the month of May the fee would be S35 across the board for residents and June through September it would be S25 across the board. That was the recommendation. They talked about marketing plans for hotels and saw a presentation on the south course development and attended a � ,_ joint meeting with the City Council at which time they approved authorization to go out to bid on the south course. C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (March 17, 1997) Chairperson Ferguson noted that they basically heard what the meeting was about in the earlier discussion. � E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (March 5, 1997) Chairperson Ferguson stated that they discussed the residential estate zone, horses, manure and home occupations, although he had to leave when the home occupations were being discussed. Mr. Drell stated that was a fairly lively discussion relative to whether given today's telecommuting and growth of the home office, whether they should look differently at the home occupation permit and allow generally at least one employee. A lot of people have maids and given the growth of home offices, some changes might be warranted. That discussion was continuing and they were going out and looking at a lot of new home occupation ordinances in other cities that also have been looking at this. It was not yet resolved. XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Ferguson said that he had some information from the planning conference that he would defer to another meeting. He said that it was an excellent conference and they would be sending some material on issues that � he would have copied and distributed to all the commissioners. 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 1997 . � XII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbeli, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Carried 4-0. he meeting was adjourned at 10:37 p.m. ��_'��'�---� . � , _ �v i ' PHILIP DREL Seeret�ar�r�"" A TEST: . \. � JA S C RG N, Chairperson Pal Desert PI nin Commission /tm � ti, � � 55