HomeMy WebLinkAbout0506 MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY - MAY 6, 1997
7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
� * � ,� * * * .� * � .� �. * � * * �. * * � � * � * .� � � * � � * * �.
�
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ferguson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Beaty led in the pledge of allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jim Ferguson, Chairperson
Paul Beaty
Sonia Campbell
George Fernandez
Sabby Jonathan
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Phil Drell Martin Alvarez
Sandy Jacobson Tonya Monroe
Steve Smith
�,,, IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Consideration of the April 15, 1997 meeting minutes.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Campbe(I, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez,
approving the April 15, 1997 minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0.
V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION:
Mr. Drell summarized pertinent April 24, 1997 City Council action.
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
VI1. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Case No. TT 27520 - BIGHORN GOLF CLUB, Applicant
Request for approval of a first one-year time extension for
Tentative Tract Map 27520 within Bighorn Golf Club.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving
�,., the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS ,
A. Case No. PP 97-4 - GUY EVANS, Applicant "�
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact and a precise plan to allow the
construction of a 9,144 square foot warehouse buiiding
located at 75-165 Sheryl Drive.
Mr. Alvarez stated that the subject property was located on the south side of
Sheryl Drive, approximately half a mile east of Cook Street. The property was a
.95 acre parcel zoned Service Industrial which abutted vacant parcels to the north,
west, east and the Coachella Valley Water District facility to the south. The
proposal would consist of a 9,144 square foot warehouse building for cabinet
manufacturing. The site plan eievations showed that the access would be from
a single drive from Sheryl and the elevations indicated a single story building 19'6"
high. Mr. Alvarez stated that the proposal met all the requirements of the City's
development standards in relation to parking and setbacks and that the project
received preliminary approval from the Architectural Review Commission. He said
for purposes of CEQA the project would not have an adverse impact on the
environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared.
Staff recommended approval of the precise plan by adoption of Resolution No.
1804, subject to the attached conditions.
Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that the location was the site that
was already being watered down. Mr. Alvarez concurred saying that it was in �
anticipation of approval to keep dust control down.
Chairperson Ferguson o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address
the commission.
MR. ROBERT H. RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place in Palm Desert,
stated that he met with staff and he was trying to do something that
would look good in the area. The building adjacent to them had a
similar architecture in keeping with the Spanish theme in the front and
the warehouse use in the back. He said that the trash was located in
the front because they had a moveable gate there to keep people from
going in the back when the business was closed and the trash could
then be picked up at any hour. He said that the landscaping
architecture in front would be desert, native architecture. It would be
low maintenance in a nice desert setting. He agreed with all of staff's
conditions and asked for approval.
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.
Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would be abstaining from discussion and
voting because he owns property within the 300-foot radius of the project.
Commissioner Campbell said that she didn't have any problem with the project. g
Commissioner Beaty was also in favor. „r;
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
Action:
r,,., Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving
the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan
abstained).
Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1804, approving PP 97-4, subject to
conditions. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained).
B. Case No. C/Z 97-5 - PALM SPRINGS BEVERLY ROAD ASSOCIATES,
Applicant
Request for approval of a change of zone to apply the
Freeway Comme�cial Overlay Zone to one of the remaining
vacant pads at the Lucky Center at the southwest corner of
Washington Street and 42nd Avenue IHovley Lane East) in
order to permit a Jack in the Box restaurant with drive-thru
facility.
Mr. Smith explained that a drive through Jack in the Box restaurant was approved
in the Lucky center on Washington Street by the County prior to annexation into
Palm Desert. The City during the annexation process agreed to grandfather the
County approval. He noted it has almost been three years since the annexation
was completed and it was determined that the County approval expired. Recently
�••• the Planning Commission recommended, and the City Council approved, the
Freeway Commercial Overlay Ordinance which permits drive through restaurants,
subject to a conditional use permit. The applicant applied to have the FCOZ
applied to one of the pads within this center. With that he submitted plans which
were distributed to commission, but as indicated in the report, staff was not
renewing the plans at this point. Staff was trying to establish what the process
would be if they wanted to go ahead with a drive through restaurant. The idea of
extending the Freeway Commercial Overlay to this site was discussed at Zoning
Ordinance Review Committee, it was discussed at Planning Commission when the
FCOZ was before them, and it was also discussed by the City Council when the
FCOZ was before them. None of the commissions, committees or City Council
chose to expand the area down to this point. Basically staff was not in favor of
extending the Freeway Commercial Overlay to this site based on the distance
factor in that it was at least a mile from the freeway interchange at Washington
Street. However, staff felt there should be some way of entertaining this
application. The way staff suggested in the report was that the applicant be
directed to apply for a precise plan/conditional use permit approval with a
development agreement, recognizing that unique features apply to this center in
that it had a previously approved drive through restaurant on the site. As well,
there was the unique location of the site. It was located on the eastern extremity
of the city, it was the only commercial center between Fred Waring and the
freeway. The commercial properties on the east side of Washington Street were
not limited to drive through restaurants. Staff felt that if they could come up with
an acceptable design for the drive through restaurant and it conformed to the
requirements contained in the FCOZ (of which one area is that the drive throughs
� must be screened from view from a public street) if they could get that, it was
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
�
staff's position that they should entertain the application and that the appropriate �
way to do so would be to process it with a deve(opment agreement, recognizing
the unique nature of it. Staff's recommendation was that Planning Commission,
by minute motion, refer the change of zone back to the applicant to withdraw the
request for the change of zone and request approval of a precise plan including
drive through pursuant to provisions of the development agreem�nt, Municipal
Code Chapter 25.37. Secondly, that by minute motion the applicant be directed
to process architectural plans through the Archifiectural Review Commission and
when they have preliminary approval there, staff would re-notice and re-advertise
the hearing to come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith noted that Mr.
Franzen and a partner were present to speak to the matter.
Chairperson Ferguson asked if the commission followed staff's recommendation,
if it would be abundantly clear that the commission was in no way commenting
on the likely passage of such an application, even if it were made appropriately.
He also didn't want to direct the applicant to reapply; he was free to at any point,
but there were three separate bodies that considered the overlay and the purpose
of extending the overlay was this drive through and he thought that all three
bodies decided they didn't want a drive through at that location. He didn't want
to make a decision to make the applicant reapply, which he was free to do
anyway, without going fairly through the process which he was willing to do with
the applicant tonight. His view was as a member of the Planning Commission and
Zoning Ordinance Review Committee and noted the very thorough review that was
given to both the extension of the Freeway Overlay and in specific a drive through �
restaurant. Mr. Smith said he thought he was present at all those meetings and �
his take on it was not that they were necessarily opposed to the drive through
restaurant on this site, but rather that they were opposed to extending the
Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone classification to the site. Chairperson Ferguson
said he would share his own recollections of those meetings with the applicant,
but his point was that by passing a motion directing them to reapply, he didn't
want to somehow indicate a favorable or unfavorable vote on that application. Mr.
Drell said that the commissioners could express any opinion on the concept of a
drive through at this location. The general issue was before the commission and
they could indicate and communicate to the applicant what the commission's
general inclination is. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the answer was no, if they
wouldn't be passing one way or another on the application and indicating that was
an available option to them. Mr. Smith said that it was his understanding that it
was an available option to them and it was staff's recommendation, in that they
were not prepared to recommend favorably toward the expansion of the FCOZ, but
they felt there was some merit in the request and tried to come up with an
acceptable process to allow them to get to the finish line.
Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address
the commission.
MR. HOWARD FREEDEL, 1359 Beverly Road in McLean, Virginia, stated
that he didn't come to the meeting tonight expecting the Planning
Commission to approve an application tonight for a drive-in. This
particular subject had been ongoing since the middle of 1994 and they
thought they had it resolved with the City when the annexation took
place. They have a letter from the City that acknowledges that their
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
development plan and plot plan with the County approved the drive-in
+� and they were concerned about what would happen when the
annexation occurred and the letter said basically that if they continued
in accordance with their development plan, the City would allow it to
go ahead. He said their delay was caused by the fact that the particular
tenant with whom they were dealing at that time, Jack in the Box, had
some very unfavorable publicity about what they were or were not
serving in their restaurants with the Health Department. Their
expansion plans went on hold and in the last six to nine months they
had begun to expand again. They were now ready to go ahead and
several months ago they submitted the drawings for approval by the
Architectural Review Commission. Apparently somewhere in the
processing someone at a level in the City felt that perhaps the letter
they received in March of 1994 was not as broad as they had
interpreted it to be and that it had a time limit and didn't continue. He
said that staff had been very cooperative and helpful with them as a
means to try and assist them in trying to find a way to move forward
with the process. It was suggested to them that they apply to be
included in the overlay program. They did what was suggested and
apparently the "powers that be" felt that it didn't make sense to extend
the overlay program as far south as they were from I-10. That was fine
and was everyone's prerogative. It was then recommended by staff
that they withdraw the application they submitted and go back under
a development plan. He said he thought people were trying to help
them. He didn't come to the meeting tonight prepared to put on a
'� presentation on all the merits of their project because he thought the
issue was whether they would accept the recommendation to withdraw
their application and go a different route. He learned a long time ago
that when people are trying to help, he should do what they suggest
and don't fight them when they are trying to help. He was disappointed
to find out that there were people who might not be trying to help them
and he didn't know that today was the time to try and convince the
commission that there should be a drive-in at this particular facility. He
told the commission that if they did get to a point where the "powers
that be" said no to having a drive-in at this location, they would want
some kind of legal determination as to why the letter they got in 1994
was no longer in effect. They were not raising that right now because
they felt they had an agency that was attempting to help them and they
would rather exhaust the administrative procedure route in a conciliatory
manner. He didn't have to make the argument that staff made and they
already said why they were suggesting that a certain route should be
taken and they were prepared to follow staff's recommendation and
proceed that way. He understood that this was not a commitment by
the Planning Commission to endorse their proposal. He didn't want
them to be concerned that they would come back and say, "Look, at
this meeting you didn't tell us that you had some doubts" primarily
because they had made it clear and he was not prepared to put on the
kind of presentation commission would expect to attempt to justify the
need for a drive-in at this time. He wanted the commission to know
� that he was present because he cares and he got on a plane at noon in
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
�
Washington today to be here. They were happy to go whatever way �
that was suggested.
Chairperson Ferguson asked why the applicant didn't follow staff's
recommendation and why they were having a public hearing on a question
previously posed to three different bodies before the City (i.e., whether to extend
the commercial overlay) and why they didn't just pull their application and refile
it the way staff suggested. Mr. Smith replied that the application was filed before
the City Council acted on the Freeway Commercial Overlay and staff got into an
advertising situation and the matter got scheduled and they had to follow through
with the public hearing.
Mr. Freedel said they have done what was suggested as an easier way
to solve this situation and apparently it wasn't. They stopped taking
the position for the time being that they have the legal right to do it
because why battle when staff has suggested that perhaps there were
other ways to accomplish what they were after. As evidenced by the
fact that he was here tonight without a presentation before commission
meant that he wasn't prepared to take on the issue tonight of justifying
their position. He would have been at the meeting with a whole dog
and pony show. They were onfy attempting to follow the
recommendations offered to them to find a peaceful and perhaps
quicker resolution to the issue.
,
Chairperson Ferguson stated that he thought staff was doing what they were
supposed to do, which was working with applicants to try and get projects
through. He thought that for this particular application he would encourage the
applicant to do whatever he needed to do, legally or otherwise. If he sued the
City, he would stand in a long line of people who do. With respect to the
desirability of having a drive through restaurant, having participated in the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review and at the Planning Commission and
having discussed the matter fairly widely, because the zoning ordinance review did
for the first time in the City's 24 year history as an incorporated City allow for
drive throughs, which was not an easy decision, they came up with carefully
delineated boundaries and circumstances under which they would permit drive
throughs. That did not include 42nd and Washington Street, either at Zoning
Ordinance Review, the Planning Commission or the City Council. Integral with
that, notwithstanding Mr. Smith's recollection, the decision was the concept of
not only do they extend the overlay, but if they wanted drive throughs this far in
the city that far from the freeway and the answer was no. He indicated that
probably didn't surprise the applicant, but he just wanted to reiterate it. He
thought the applicant was aware of these things and that staff had informed him
of them and as he indicated through his questions with staff, he didn't mind
talking directly with him about this and saying that they were free to file an
application, free to sue the city, or free to do whatever, but he thought that if the
applicant had read the minutes or done any homework he would realize that the
policy decision with where the City wants drive throughs had been made and with
that in mind if the applicant felt he had extenuating circumstances based on the �
annexation and preannexation overtures by the City, he could file an application. �
Mr. Freedel said that he ot the messa e. �
9 9
6
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
Commissioner Jonathan said that he wanted to respond to Mr. Freedel's
w comments and wanted to thank him for taking the time to come to the meeting.
As one vote only he didn't have a problem with a drive through in the location he
was suggesting. That was not to say that if an application was to come before
the Commission in the form of a development agreement that he would vote in
favor or against because there were a whole host of issues to consider when a
project came before them. He understood staff's initial intent in extending the
overlay zone and he agreed with staff's recommendation at this point that it didn't
make sense to do that, but if there was another way to accomplish it and at the
same time meeting all of the other requirements, then he would not have a
problem.
Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Freedel found that the drive through was very
important to him.
Mr. Freedel said that their parcel has been sitting vacant since they
opened one of the most successful shopping centers in the valley. They
have the Lucky's with the highest volume in the desert. It was either
the first or second best store here. The restaurants would not come in
unless they could have a drive-in. The property directly across the
street was available. Cari's Jr. was a drive-in and if they went to
Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street there were drive-ins. This center
was designed and they were under the County jurisdiction at the time
and their game plan was to have at least one drive-in restaurant. They
have one of the most successful centers in the area and they couldn't
r.•► get a restaurant. He felt that spoke for itself. Businesses wouldn't
come unless they could have a drive-in.
Commissioner Campbell asked what the percentage was of drive through
customers were versus sit down.
Mr. Freedel didn't know if that was how the restaurants looked at it,
but they looked at it that they get "X" dollars in volume from the drive
through and they were unwilling to put in a restaurant and lose it. He
could talk to the restaurants until he was blue in the face, but he
couldn't tell them that they were wrong. They just say they won't
come.
Commissioner Campbell asked if the present fast food restaurants in Palm Desert
were now losing money because they don't have drive throughs.
Mr. Freedel said no, what he thought was happening was that they
weren't getting a lot of the real quality drive-ins that would be available
because the City wouldn't allow them to come in with the drive-ins. He
was not urging the City to change its policy for all of Palm Desert, but
they were in a unique location. The City came and got them--they
didn't ask to be part of the City. They had no choice. The City did an
annexation, they were included and were on the eastern boundary line
and they were on a truly commercial street, not on a residential street
as such and if ever there was a justification for having a commercial
`"" type of drive-in restaurant, this was the place to have it. They didn't
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
build their center expecting to have a battle with the gove�nment on �
whether or not they could put a drive-in in there and if Jack in the Box �
had not had its Health Department problems, they would have been
there and the City would have been happy. They had a letter from the
City saying they could go ahead and do it and apparently the delay in
time has caused some people to say that maybe they don't want a
drive-in there. He said he hadn't specifically answered the question, but
he cou(dn't address it from the restaurant point of view, only from the
developer point of view and he hadn't been able to get anyone there in
almost four years since they opened in July of 1993 in one of the best
locations in the whole desert. He thought that spoke for itself that they
wouldn't come.
Chairperson Ferguson said that Palm Desert has every other major fast food
restaurant in Palm Desert with the exception of Wendy's which made an
application and was denied. They were told repeatedly that Jack in the Box would
not go anywhere it couldn't have a drive th�ough to which apparently people
before him had said "fine". The duality of his argument was that they were
grandfathered in and now the City was saying they were not grandfathered in.
That decision was made apparently by staff who reviewed it that said they didn't
consider them grandfathered in. If they were legally determined to be
grandfathered in, he would be the first one to support his application because he
believed the City should live up to its promises, but that was not before him.
What was before him was the applicant, no different from anyone else who wants
to put in a drive through in the city, and if they got onto a slippery slope that they
are on the eastern perimeter and are in a commercial corridor, Palm Desert has
commercial corridors all through the city and he didn't know how they could draw
a principal line that they did with the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone, so that
was where he was coming from. He wasn't trying to get around Mr. Freedel's
legal argument and hadn't seen it and if it had merit he was sure the City Attorney
would look at it and pass on it accordingly, but he was reviewing the application
no different from anyone else in the city of Palm Desert.
Mr. Freedel said he didn't want Chairperson Ferguson to think he was
offended by anything he said. He understood exactly what he was
saying and hoped Chairperson Ferguson understood what he thought
had happened to him--that he had been proceeding in what he
considered a cooperative manner. It was suggested to them that they
go the overlay route because maybe that could expedite things--it didn't
work. It was suggested by the staff that they pull their application and
go another route. He came tonight to tell the commission that he would
be happy to do that and they were conveying to him somewhat clearly,
at least Chairperson Ferguson personally was, that he has a great deal
of philosophical problems with the ultimate concept that they are asking
for. Another gentleman said he would at ieast have an open mind. He
said that he got through to him and he didn't know which way they
were going to go. They don't make their living as developers by suing
jurisdictions. On the other hand, if they were right and they were
willing to have a short life in this jurisdiction, they might have to follow �
Chairperson Ferguson's suggestion and evaluate their alternatives. He �
said he didn't come tonight in the mood to argue with anyone. ,�
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
Otherwise, he would have arrived last night and gotten a good night's
w. sleep.
Chairperson Ferguson clarified that he did hope that Mr. Freedel filed his
application and had his due process. Secondly, this had nothing to do with
philosophy or closed minds. It was simply to point out that three different bodies
in this city had taken a look, in his opinion, at the question of if they wanted a
drive through restaurant at that location tied with the question of the Freeway
Overlay, but really the only point in pulling it up to 42nd was the drive through and
it passed on that.
Mr. Freedel said he thought they had only addressed the issue of
whether it made sense to extend the overlay if the purpose was to be
near the freeway and how they could justify coming a mile off. He
didn't know that the underlying issue had been also discussed.
Chairperson Ferguson thought they were inextricably intertwined and he talked to
two other members of the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee today, one of
which was in the audience, to see if his recollection of this discussion was
consistent. He suggested that Mr. Freedel file his application. He knew what an
expensive process planning was and everything fundamentally was a business
decision and he felt Mr. Freedel should proceed accordingly. That was his only
point.
Commissioner Jonathan said that he agreed with Mr. Freedel--his understanding
'_+ of the other bodies that looked at this have looked at the issue independently from
the drive through at that location and looked at the issue of extending the overlay
zone. Having said that, he thought it didn't matter. They were at this point where
staff was recommending to commission that there be a withdrawal of the
extension of the overlay zone application and in its place should the applicant
choose to do so, they would have the freedom to approach the matter in a
different path. He asked if Mr. Freedel understood that the bottom line from the
whole discussion was that hopefully there would be open minds should the matter
come before them and there were certainly no commitments.
Mr. Freedel said that he understood.
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. He asked
for commission comments.
Commissioner Beaty noted that in the staff report under the section "Background"
it stated that it has been determined that the grandfathered approval has expired.
He asked who made that determination. Mr. Drell replied that it was during
discussions with the individuals who made the original commitment. The
assumption was that the project would proceed and it was the understanding of
those that wrote the letter that the commitment didn't extend forever.
Commissioner Beaty asked if counsel had any comments about this. Ms. Jacobson
said that she hasn't seen the letter and just going by what she has heard from
various staff inembers and they have told her that the grandfathered status had
""' expired. Commissioner Beaty said that he agreed with Commission Jonathan. He
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
wasn't sure he was opposed to a drive through at that particular location because
of the drive through, but he would be very critical of that parking lot because he �
felt the parking lot near Lucky's was a disaster. He uses that bank and he has had
people comment to him about it. He said that it was very difficult to drive through
that parking lot to get back onto Hovley, although access to Washington Street
was okay. That would be one of the main things he would be looking at even if
it was a restaurant with no drive through.
Commissioner Fernandez stated that he agreed with Commissioner Ferguson.
Certain guidelines for the city have been established. He said that he had an open
mind and respected the applicant for being at the meeting, but he also respected
the rules of the city.
Commissioner Jonathan felt that Commissioner Beaty made a cogent point
regarding the time period and whether it has really expired or not for grandfathered
approval. He suggested that if this matter came before the commission again, or
if it was continued at the staff level, that maybe there could be a reexamination
as to whether there had been an expiration of the grandfathered approval. That
might be the most expedient manner in which to deal with this. Chairperson
Ferguson asked if there had been a legal opinion made as to the expiration of the
grandfathered expiration. Mr. Drell asked for and received a copy of the letter
from Mr. Diaz.
Mr. Freedel said that the letter he handed to Mr. Drell was the response
to a multi-page letter from their counsel. He thought it might be unfair
to read only one part of it. He just wanted to caution the commission �
that this was not just a letter that came out of thin air, but was in
specific response to a letter. For them to have a discussion as to the
legal significance of the sentences might be difficult.
Mr. Drell said that when the application came back before the commission staff
would have a complete analysis from the City Attorney as to the status of these
sorts of applications on an annexation.
Mr. Freedel said they should note that the letter didn't specify a time
limit, so he was puzzled and they could tell he was puzzled because he
was not prepared to address some of these issues.
Chairperson Ferguson noted that if the project was grandfathered in, the
commission would not necessarily need to adopt a development agreement as an
ordinance, they could just proceed. He asked if a legal opinion would proceed the
application. Mr. Drell said it could. Chairperson Ferguson said he would defer to
staff on the appropriate way, but what he would like to do was continue this
matter, instruct the City Attorney to render a legal opinion on the grandfathered
status of the permit approvals, and depending upon the resolution of that, or in the
alternative they could decide the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone was not the
best avenue of approach at this point, instruct the City Attorney to take a look at
the legal opinion and then the applicant could decide whether or not to submit an
application based on her review.
�
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
Mr. Freedel felt that was the best way for him to go. He said they
,r.�, understood there were some problems and they have worked with staff
to try and solve those problems and now they were being told not to go
that route.
Commissioner Beaty stated that in the event that this does come back to the
commission, he wanted to see the applicant do a very careful analysis of the
traffic patterns in that parking lot because he didn't think he could approve even
a four-seat restaurant anywhere near Lucky's because the parking lot traffic was
dangerous.
Chairperson Ferguson asked if when the project came in approved, if it came in as
a precise plan. Mr. Drell said they came in with a plot plan approval from the
County. The reason he was at a disadvantage was because the discussions
occurred between his predecessor and a councilman. Each of their recollections
to the intent of that commitment was unclear and different from the applicant's
understanding. Chairperson Ferguson said that they could hash out the legal side
of it and if it was determined that he was legally grandfathered in, so be it. If they
are on an equal footing as every other commercial development in the city, he has
already expressed his comments.
Chairperson Ferguson suggested a motion denying the extension of the Freeway
Commercial Overlay Zone to include this drive through restaurant and instructing
the City Attorney to prepare a legal analysis of whether or not this particular
applicant was grandfathered in during the annexation process. Commissioner
+�.. Jonathan said that rather than directing the matter to legal counsel, they could
deny the extension of the FCOZ request, but refer the matter back to staff and let
them make the determination, with or without legal counsel. He didn't want to
bind staff to get a legal opinion and if they determine that the extension has not
expired, he wanted them to be able to do that. Chairperson Ferguson felt they
already did that. Commissioner Jonathan wasn't sure that issue was actually
resolved and he was not preventing them from seeking legal counsel, unless
Chairperson Ferguson specifically wanted a legal opinion and he was not
precluding that, but he was suggesting giving staff the option of handling it on
their own. Mr. Drell stated that staff would get a legal opinion. He said this issue
was significant enough to warrant one.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, by minute
motion directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for C/Z 97-5 and referring
the matter to staff and the City Attorney for analysis of the project's history and
current status of approvals. Carried 5-0.
Mr. Dre(I clarified that if the applicant didn't withdraw his application, staff woufd
prepare a resolution of denial.
V
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
C. Case No. PM 27136 - RONALD F. CORN AND LINDA G. CORN, �
Appiicants '
�
Request for approval of a parcel map splitting an existing
18,354 square foot lot into two 9,177 square foot lots
located on the east side of McLachlin Circle in Avondale
Country Club.
Chairperson Ferguson noted that the commission was given a letter from the
applicant requesting a continuance. He said that the public hearing would be
conducted for anyone wishing to add�ess the commission, but wanted to let
everyone know at the outset about the continuance request. He asked for a staff
report.
Mr. Smith indicated that there were two additional letters received, one from Cindy
Bieter, the Association Manager, dated May 6 and a letter dated May 5 from Gerry
and Jean Thompson on Blossom Lane indicating they have no objection to the
proposed lot split. He noted that the plan was on display. Mr. Drell added that
the main reason for the continuance request was because to staff's knowledge the
Homeowners Association had not made a decision or recommendation on this lot
split. Commissioner Beaty noted that was explained in the letter from Ms. Bieter.
Mr. Dref( indicated that the City typically gives great consideration to any
Association recommendation, so staff would like to get that before a decision was
made. Mr. Smith noted that the property was located on McLachlin Circle within
Avondale Country Club. There was an existing lot (number 1 1 11 which was on �
the eastern end of McLachlin Circle. It was presently an irregularly shaped vacant �
lot, an area of 18,354 square feet with 240 +/- feet of frontage. He said the
request was to divide this parcel into two parcels each containing 9,177 square
feet. The southerly lot shown as Parcel 2 on the parcel map would have a lot
width at the street of 89 feet; at the midpoint the lot would meet the 70-foot
requirement and would have an area of 9,177 square feet. The northerly lot would
be an irregularly shaped lot in that it would be triangular shaped with some 150
feet of frontage and the area would be at 9,177 square feet. As indicated in the
staff report, Mr. Smith explained that Avondale was mapped many years ago. The
City annexed the area in January of 1992. Preannexation zoning recognized the
country club use and the site was zoned Planned Residential. The Planned
Residential section of the ordinance referred to single story detached buildings
which refers them to the provisions of Chapter 25.16 which was the R-1 single
family section. He noted that commission received copies of these code sections
with the staff report. When it referred the lots in the homes to Chapter 25.16, it
referred them "with the majority of lot sizes determining the standard". He said
that ail the homes on McLachlin Circle were single story. He indicated that the lot
sizes on McLachlin Circle ranged tremendously. Immediately across the street
from the subject site there were two lots at 9,147 square feet, but there was also
a lot just around the corner at 48,787. He said that adjacent lots range in size
from 2,308 to 17,052 square feet. As indicated previously, the two smallest lots
in the area were across the street. Other lots across the street ranged from
10,000, 12,500 and almost 17,000 square feet. Mr. Smith explained that staff
originally received a telephone call from the homeowners' management firm. They �
followed that up with a letter received last Friday with a copy of the CC&Rs. The �
CC&Rs didn't specifically address the issue of lot splits, but the homeowners'
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
association wished to have an opportunity to review this matter and pursuant to
�„�, their letter of today, staff understood that they had the matter scheduled for their
board meeting of Tuesday, May 20. Regarding the wording in the ordinance "with
the majority of lot sizes determining the standard" staff looked at the lot sizes on
McLachlin Circle, 29 lots total. Staff came up with an average of more than
16,000 square feet per lot. The existing lot was located on the inside of the
circle. If they just considered lots on the inside of the circle, the majority of the
lot sizes averaged more than 21 ,000 square feet. Basically staff's position was
that they were not in a position to meet the average of the lots out there. He said
he supposed the argument could be made that they should have looked at all the
lots in Avondale Country Club, but they chose to look at the 29 lots on McLachlin
Circle. That didn't include the three lots on the end of Blossom, which was the
small circle street. Those three lots were larger than the 9,177 proposed, so it
would have decreased the average slightly, but those three lots were not on
McLachlin Circle. In order to approve a parcel map, commission must meet the
typical findings for consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. It
was staff's position at this time that the minimum size requirement could not be
met pursuant to the ordinance, but staff would have no problem with a
continuance of the matter to allow the applicant to discuss the matter further with
the homeowners' association. Staff suggested a continuance to June 3, 1997 in
that if the Homeowners Association deals with it on the 20th, that is also the next
meeting date and staff would be unable to have time to review the
recommendation if they make one at that time.
Chairperson Ferguson o ened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished
� to address the commission. Mr. Drell thought the applicant was not present since
he requested the continuance in writing. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone
wished to speak in FAVOR of the proposal. There were none. Chairperson
Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposal.
MR. LARRY KELFER, 75-631 McLachlin Circle, thanked commission and
staff and indicated that he was here five years ago on the same issue
when Mr. Corn requested a split of his lot on McLachlin. The opposition
then was the same as it is today. He noted that nothing was said about
his letter of April 22, which he hoped the commission had a copy of.
Mr. Smith concurred that commission received a copy with their staff report.
Mr. Kelfer stated that they had 20 signatures, all McLachlin
homeowners, and they definitely opposed any splitting of lots at
Avondale. Of the 20 McLachlin homeowners or lot owners, one was
Mr. Purdy, who owned a very large lot next to Mr. Corn. He said Mr.
Purdy didn't live on McLachlin but in Kilamanjaro, but he owned that lot
and he was definitely against splitting any lots. In addition, Mr.
Anthony Carona owned two large lots that front Tandika and both sides
of McLachlin Circle and he was also against splitting any lots on
McLachlin or within Avondale. He said this proposal, which was
originally made five years ago when Secretary Diaz was here, Secretary
Diaz just about said that he would deny the permit to split the lot. At
that time Mr. Corn, who was present and stood up, said that he would
'� withdraw the proposal so it was a dead issue. Now that there was a
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
new Board of Directors who were not on the Board five years ago, Mr. �
Corn decided to try again. What he did was ignore the Board of �
Directors and the CC&Rs. He didn't ask for a variance or anything from
the Board, but then submitted directly to the Planning Commission his
desire to split the lot. He said this did not come to the attention of their
president of their board association, who was present tonight (Mr.
Bryson), until Mr. Kelfer introduced the fact after having received the
notice. He introduced it to Desert Management and Cindy Bieter in turn
issued it to the rest of the Board. He thought it seemed as though Mr.
Corn went about his request in a very devious manner by not going to
the homeowners Board of Directors according to the CC&Rs. He said
he wouldn't quote all the articles that he could because he used to be
on the Board of Directors in 1992 when this confronted them five years
ago. He said that Mr. Gaiecky, who has a home on McLachlin, bought
the lot next to him which is at McLachlin and Blossom Lane and he
would now have an address of Blossom Lane. His lot was 18,000
square feet, the same as Mr. Corn's. He was currently building a 4,000
square foot home there. Many of their homes along McLachlin were
beautiful large homes and ranged between 3,100 square feet up to
7,500 square feet. He said if the commission ever drove through
McLachlin they would see some magnificent looking homes. Their
homeowners didn't want to see small homes, although they did have
some small homes that were sneaked in by a developer who he heard
did not go through the Board of Directors and proceeded to build the
three smailer homes, one of which is 3,000 square feet which wasn't �
that small. He said that Article 3 Section 9 requested any variances on
improved or unimproved properties to go through the Board of Directors
of the Homeowners Association. Article 4 of Section 1 stated that all
lots within Avondale are designated as single family residential lots,
therefore, their reading as homeowners on McLachlin was that they
read this that the existing lots were for single residential homes. They
don't want to set a new precedence and that was what would happen
if permission was given to Mr. Corn to split his lot.
Chairperson Ferguson pointed out that the Corns would be before the
Homeowners Association and his Board would have an opportunity to discuss this
on the 23rd if the commission granted the continuance and then it would come
back before commission with their Board's decision at that time.
MS. SANDY ROBINSON, 75-618 McLachlin Circle, stated that she and
her husband, Riley Robinson, were opposed to the dividing of the Corn
lot. Approximately five years ago they went through this and the
Corns' request was rejected. Nothing had changed since then except
that there were more homes and owners opposing this than there were
then. In this day and age they were not willing to encourage or support
the decreasing of the value of their homes should this be approved.
She encouraged the commission to deny the Corn request of an
extension of time also. As they were all aware, as the temperatures ;
rise, many residents leave. This would seem to be a ploy to keep those
in opposition who leave for the summer from any further opportunity to
voice further opposition. She asked that commission pay serious
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
attention to the fact that the Corns were denied on their first attempt,
,.., as well as the number of neighbors opposed to this as witnessed by the
petition of opposition the commission was presented with. She fihanked
the commission for their consideration.
Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission
comments.
Commissioner Beaty said he would move to continue. Chairperson Ferguson said
that he would like to see the testimony and evidence that were provided five years
ago to determine if this request was rejected or withdrawn by the applicant. Mr.
Drell said it was his understanding that the case was withdrawn. Chairperson
Ferguson said he would still like to see what the proposal was then to see if it was
any different now. Mr. Drell believed it was the same or very similar, but would
provide ihat information.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, continuing
PM 27136 to June 3, 1997 by minute motion. Carried 5-0.
D. Case No. TT 28549 - LANCE ALACANO, Applicant
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact and tentative tract map to subdivide
i..r 20 acres into 72 single family lots, each a minimum of 9,000
square feet. Property is located on the west side of
Washington, 1300 feet north of Fred Waring Drive.
Mr. Alvarez noted that a revised tentative tract map was distributed to the
commission. He said that the subject property was located on the west side of
Washington Street approximately 1 ,300 feet north of Fred Waring. The site was
a 20-acre parcel currently zoned R-1 9,000 which abutted the Desert Breezes
residential complex on the south, one acre parcels to the west, and an apartment
complex and one acre parcels on the north. As part of the City's Project Area 4
Specific Plan, this property's front five acres on Washington Street were rezoned
from R-3 to R-1 9,000 which matched the remaining 15 acres that backed up onto
Robin Road. The current proposal by the applicant included the subdivision of 20
acres into 72 single family lots, each a minimum of 9,000 square feet. He noted
that the main entrance would be from an access road perpendicular to Washington
Street. Interior streets consisted of four cul-de-sacs running from north to south.
The revised map now showed an emergency access road off of Robin Road at the
western end of the property. The lots had an average of 9,500 square feet with
the smallest being 9,000 as required by the ordinance and the largest was about
9,700 square feet. He said the subdivision would be gated and the gates would
be maintained by the homeowners association. He noted that the applicant
originally submitted a tract map that had the street layout reversed, meaning that
the main entrance was near the southern section of the property on Washington
and the four cul-de-sacs ran south to north. He said the original layout was
reviewed and accepted by both the Project Area 4 Committee and the Desert
'�+ Breezes Homeowners Association. Due to some cost factors, the applicant
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
reversed the layout of the property and instead of having the 16 homes backing �
up on the Desert Breezes property, the new layout had eight homes or side yards �
facing the Desert Breezes property. Some of the issues brought up in relation to
the Desert Breezes property by the Association included grading and wall heights.
The original grading showed pad heights between one and six feet below the
Desert Breezes property. The new pad heights were now between one and three
feet below the adjacent property. The applicant met various times with the Desert
Breezes Homeowners Association to discuss the modifications and he noted that
Desert Breezes representatives were present to address the commission, along
with the comments distributed to the commission. He said that there was a ten-
foot setback being required for lots 23, 24, 37, 38, 51 , 52, 65 and 66 which abut
the Desert Breezes property. As indicated in the staff report, the proposed map
and improvements would meet the requirements of the City's subdivision
regulations and the California State Map Act. For purposes of CEQA, Mr. Alvarez
explained that the project would not have an adverse impact on the environment
and a Negative Declaration had been prepared. He said that staff was
recommending approval of the tentative tract subject to the conditions and the
addition of two more conditions which Mr. Drell would address. Mr. Drell said
some of the conditions being requested by Desert Breezes were really
modifications of existing conditions. The first was that a maintenance agreement
would be prepared by Mr. Alacano's attorney and Desert Breezes who owns the
common wall is responsible for maintaining said wall. Any damage to said wall
resulting from grading, development of the proposed Tucson homes or
homeowners, would be paid for by the Tucson Homeowners Association. As Mr.
Drell understood it, whiie the Desert Breezes Association was responsible for
maintenance, the new developer would be responsible for any damage that results �
from his activities to that wall. He said that condition could be added as well.
Condition number six addressing landscaping could be changed in that cul-de-sacs
were really private properties and would ultimately be front yards of the homes.
This condition referred to the type of landscaping that would be installed, which
would be desert type and that the Tucson HOA through their CC&Rs would be
responsible for enforcing that the ultimate private property owner would maintain
that landscaping. There were some conditions from a civil or structural engineer
relative to the wall included in the letter dealing with precautions the developer
should or must do to make sure that the integrity of that wall is protected while
he is doing his grading. He thought those were fairly reasonable conditions to
make sure that the wall isn't damaged during the grading process. He said there
was a common wall in back of the wall that was now the northern wall of Desert
Breezes becoming the southern wall of the new project and the City requires that
tracts have a six-foot perimeter wall. Right now that wall was of varying heights
and as typically measured from Desert Breezes' side was less than six feet, so this
condition would require the developer to ensure, through the installation of
wrought iron fencing on top of that existing wall, that there be at least a minimum
of a six-foot wall as measured from the Desert Breezes side. In that it varies, it
was conceivable that the height of that wall might vary. While the condition says
that the Desert Breezes Master Association is required to agree to the final design,
the City could not delegate that authority to the Association and it would be
changed to say that the final design would be as approved by the City's
Architectural Commission in consultation with the Desert Breezes Master
Association. On dust control, there was a condition (number 121 under Public
Works Department relative to conformance to the City's PM 10 fugitive dust and
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
they are requiring that the specific control measure on the unconstructed vacant
r•• lots be a soil stabiiizer and he assumed that is what the applicant would use in any
case. That was one of the required options of the PM 10 fugitive dust ordinance.
He said there was already a condition regarding the ten-foot side yard. He said
that a condition could be added that the smallest model would be placed there.
Assuming that the applicant didn't object to these conditions as modified, staff
would agree to add them.
Commissioner Campbel( asked how many homes were in Desert Breezes right
now. Mr. Alvarez replied 371 units--247 detached homes and the rest were
timeshares and villas. Commissioner Campbell asked if there was a specia!
requirement for how many gates could be in gated communities. Mr. Alvarez
replied no. He spoke with the City's engineer who stated there was no minimum
number of gates required versus number of units.
Chairperson Ferguson o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address
the commission.
MR. LANCE ALACANO, 42-335 Washington Street in Palm Desert,
stated that he was the developer of the Tucson project which would
have 72 homes with an average lot size of 9,000 square feet. He said
they did run into a problem after they took a second pass at the
grading. They ended up having to flip the project over. Originally he
preferred having the entrance closer to the Desert Breezes side versus
the unsightly apartments on the other side and aesthetically it looked a
'� lot better, but they ran into some serious drainage problems. Since
Washington Street f(owed toward the north, they were trying to slope
their streets on the interior south, so they were working against grade,
but the problem with the sewer was the big problem--it was too low to
get to their connection on Darby Road so they would have had to import
about 70,000 yards of dirt and that dirt would have had to have gone
against the Desert Breezes wall to get the sewer high enough to get out
to flow down to Darby Road. By flipping it the project laid out a lot
better, but unfortunately they would have to do some landscaping at
the entrance to hide the adjacent apartments. He said that he met with
Desert Breezes several times. They had some concerns when the
design was flipped because the grade did come up roughly a foot; it
was one foot to six feet in some areas and now it was one foot to three
feet. They were still lower than Desert Breezes other than right down
on the end on the west side where they backed up to a well site where
they were about one foot four inches higher than Desert Breezes. The
rest sloped down toward Washington and it varied from one and a half
to two and a half feet lower than the Desert Breezes project. Some
concerns were brought up about the wall once they did flip it and that
was what they had been discussing with Desert Breezes, who had their
own engineers look at the wall. What they came up with in general,
and they haven't really discussed it and he hadn't met with them again
about the wrought iron, but he thought that was basically the only
concern of theirs at this point. He went to several of the property
owners' backyards and they did have a point. There was a six-foot
�""' garden wall that goes along a lot of that property and on some of the
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
Desert Breezes lots they are retaining against that so their side was
close to four or five and a half feet and varies throughout the project.
There was one section that was about 350 feet long that was a
concern of his also because on his side it was only four feet to four feet
eight inches high. There was a community pool behind there and he
thought it should be addressed and he would be responsible for raising
that wall since he was the developer putting in the project next door.
On approximately 840 feet, there was actually a six-foot garden wall
that varied from about five foot four to six feet all the way down on his
side of the property. On the Desert Breezes side they had some
retaining against it and one of the homeowners had a minimum of four
feet and the others went four and a half, five and a half and some were
six. From what Ms. Finerty told him, he didn't think there were any at
six feet but from his side it varied from five foot four to about six foot
seven all along there. He said he had some other diagrams of the wall
and on the 5.8 to 6.7-foot wall that runs the 800 feet, their property
was going to go down roughly one foot and a half sloping down to their
lot so there was a 2 to 1 slope from their wall down. On an average
the wall was 5.8 feet high and with the slope and retaining wall they
would be at seven feet high on their side. Some Desert Breezes
homeowners were concerned and they wanted to see two feet of
wrought iron on top of that and on that 840 feet, he was opposed to
that just because homeowners that would buy the lots along there (lots
56, 55, 52, 51 and 38) would be looking at roughly a nine-foot wall on
their side and back yards. He said that Desert Breezes expressed their �
concerns about security and he thought that if that was not a high
enough wall for security purposes, he didn't know how much higher to
go with it other than the seven feet now. He didn't see a reason to go
up another two feet with wrought iron.
Chairperson Ferguson asked for clarification that Desert Breezes homeowners were
worried that residents of the Tucson gated community would jump the fence into
the Desert Breezes community.
Mr. Alacano concurred that that had been expressed. He felt that was
basically the biggest concern. He said it was basically open to the
world and open desert right now. He could see the problem now, but
once they are there, it would just be side yards and he didn't see their
homeowners jumping that wall.
Chairperson Ferguson noted that it would be easier to jump the wall from Desert
Breezes into the Tucson development than the reverse.
Mr. Alacano said that if they also take into consideration the line of
sight, in reality the Desert Breezes people would be looking down on the
new residences. He said that people could be entertaining and the
Desert Breezes people would be able to see them. He thought the wall
there was acceptable the way it is, but was willing to meet with Desert 3
Breezes on that issue and any other issues that come up from the
Project Area 4 Committee and he hoped they could get this passed. He
said that he would like to start grading as soon as possible.
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
Chairperson Ferguson asked if there were any other outstanding issues with Desert
.r.. Breezes other than the solid block perimeter wall/open style fencing issue.
Mr. Alacano replied not that he knew of. For the rest of the walls on
the north and west side they would be constructing a six-foot wall all
the way around the rest of the project.
Commissioner Campbell asked if he had a problem with just having one gate for
ingress/egress.
Mr. Alacano replied no, because they have an emergency access in the
back in case of fire. With just 72 homes, he felt there was plenty of
room for cars to get around if someone was at the gate trying to get
hold of a homeowner and there was room to double stack cars at the
call box in front. He didn't see any problems arising from one gate.
Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION
to the proposal.
MS. CINDY FINERTY, 43-592 Via Batalona in Palm Desert, said that
they (Desert Breezes) have met with Mr. Alacano many times in an
effort to reach some consensus. On a meeting on April 21 they were
told that all 16 lots that backed up to Desert Breezes would be three
feet lower. They had a meeting with all the homeowners that they
invited Mr. Alacano to and everyone was happy. A week after that she
�•• received a call from Mr. Drell indicating that there was a change in
plans. That was April 30 and she expressed their concern regarding the
line of sight, the wall, and now a differentiation of maybe only one to
three feet. For example, one lady who has the four-foot high wall from
the Desert Breezes side, what Mr. Alacano explained about his wall she
didn't feel "played out" and she could have another gentleman explain
that to commission. When they met with Mr. Alacano on the 21 st
everyone was happy and then they were told everything was changing.
They understood that it was a cost factor driving the change and they
were not opposed to that and were willing to work with him. They
decided to get their own engineers to make sure they were getting the
straight story because they were concerned about the structural
integrity of the wall. One of their engineers had tried to get those plans
but they were unavailable. They received the new plans from Mr.
Alacano on Thursday, May 1 at 9:00 a.m. when he attended another
meeting. Between Thursday and today, they were able to get the plans
to two engineers and meet with the homeowners on different
occasions, the last being last night and they invited Mr. Alacano to
attend and the homeowners on Via Magellan who abuts up to this
project wanted to have the wall extended two feet because of their
wall. They would look down, however, there was only a four to five-
foot wall on their side from the Desert Breezes side. lt was their
understanding in talking with Mr. Drell that the applicant was required
to build a six-foot wall around the entire premise of the project.
Because Desert Breezes has an existing wall, Mr. Alacano wasn't
"" required to do so. Their attorney advised that since they have a wall
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
a
and Mr. Alacano was wishing to share in it, that they could ask him to �
split the cost of the wall. Their attorney also believed that they should �
require that a new fence be built as is required along the other parts of
the property. In a spirit of cooperation and in dealing with the
homeowners, and she felt Mr. Alacano would agree that this wasn't
easy, they finally got all the homeowners to agree to wrought iron so
that there was a six-foot wall, or six feet from the Desert Breezes side.
They also have a swimming pool in this area. It was a common area
pool and they have had problems with people jumping over the fence
and there wasn't a project there. That caused a problem for them
insurance wise. They felt it would be best for everyone, and all the
homeowners agreed, to have wrought iron. She spoke with Mr.
Alacano and Mr. Drell on a conference call this afternoon and it was not
expressed to her that Mr. Alacano would disagree. Mr. Dre(I indicated
that they would write in that there would be a six-foot wall as measured
from the Desert Breezes side. She came to this meeting tonight with
that understanding. If she had gone back to the homeowners to tell
them that Mr. Alacano didn't wish to put in the wrought iron fencing,
the commission would have had many people present very upset. They
worked very hard to try and reach consensus with Mr. Alacano; they
appreciated that he has attended the meetings and they have come to
all agreements with the exception of the wrought iron and they felt it
was necessary.
�
Chairperson Ferguson asked if it was fair to say that the Desert Breezes wall was t
built, and assuming Mr. Alacano never came along, their fence was not six feet in �
height along their northern perimeter.
Ms. Finerty said they have tried to get the actual plans of the wall. The
wall was built under the County and the City currently has no permits
or anything for the wall and one of their engineers went to the County
and they showed nothing as well. What the wall is they didn't know.
Their concern was the structural integrity of the wall and she did know
of one homeowner who had the wall rebuilt. They were told it was due
to insufficient rebar.
Chairperson Ferguson said his question was, and he thought Ms. Finerty agreed
with Mr. Alacano, that there were sections of the existing wall that were less than
six feet where the Desert Breezes residents would be able to look over into the
new project.
Ms. Finerty agreed.
Chairperson Ferguson asked if it was that way before Mr. Alacano came along.
Ms. Finerty replied yes.
Chairperson Ferguson asked if they now wanted Mr. Alacano to split the cost with �
Desert Breezes to improve their wall.
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
Ms. Finerty said they were not asking him to split the cost. They
�► sought legal counsel and that was what their legai counsel advised.
They were not asking that tonight. They were simply asking for up to
two feet of wrought be put on top of the existing wall.
Chairperson Ferguson said that he was trying to determine the propriety of having
Mr. Alacano improve the Desert Breezes wall when in every instance with his
elevation except for one, he does have a six-foot perimeter wall. They wanted him
to make sure that Desert Breezes had a six-foot wall, either solid block
combination with open fencing or just a solid block wall and asked if that was
correct.
Ms. Finerty said that they realized that by adding two feet of block wall
that might compromise the structural integrity of the wall so that was
another reason it was suggested by one of their engineers who came to
meet with Mr. Drell yesterday and it was agreed that wrought iron
would be the simple answer to everyone's problems. They felt it was
a reasonable request and the homeowners agreed and she was under
the impression that Mr. Drell thought it was a good idea as he worked
with Mr. Levine and everything was fine up until tonight.
Commissioner Jonathan said he wanted to pursue that point because he didn't
want to misread anything. He said that they have had from the Desert Breezes
conception along that side a wall anywhere from four to six feet high. He asked
if the application before the commission deteriorated their position in any way or
''"' if the application made the Desert Breezes position worse.
Ms. Finerty didn't believe it was made worse. It was explained to the
homeowners that they felt that having a project behind them instead of
a vacant lot would add to the security that it was currently lacking right
now. Their concern was people jumping over the fence because people
have jumped over the fence. Their concern was warranted because
they have had those problems in the past.
Commissioner Jonathan said he understood their security concerns, but asked if
the project before them tonight in some way compromised the height of the wall
on their side or in any way made their position worse other than concentrating
attention on their security concerns which were on going.
Ms. Finerty said that by having the one individual homeowner, the
Trevors home, their wall from the Desert Breezes side was only four
feet and when Mr. Alacano gets done it looked like there would only be
a five-foot differential and the City requires six feet, therefore they were
asking for the additional wrought iron and not asking the developer to
put up a new wall.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was only on one home she was referring to.
Ms. Finerty said that one home was the worst case scenario. There
� were other homes that varied from four and a half to five feet. She
thought five feet tended to be the norm.
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
Commissioner Jonathan noted that it was a preexisting condition and that
preexisting condition was not being made any worse by the application before the
commission.
Ms. Finerty agreed that it was a preexisting condition and didn't think
it was being made any worse by the application.
Chairperson Ferguson said that intellectually he was having difficulty
understanding why a vacant lot against a four-foot wall was more secure than a
gated subdivision against a four-foot wall. He asked if he was missing something.
Ms. Finerty said that he wasn't missing anything and that was the point
she had with the homeowners yesterday. She took the position that by
having a development it was far more secure than having a vacant lot.
The homeowners were saying that they might have neighborhood kids,
vendors servicing their pools, gardeners, etc., and since they have
already experienced a problem with people jumping over, they were very
concerned and it was a real problem. They have had people break into
their houses along that wal! and in the past they wondered what they
could do with that wall. Now with this application coming forward
everything was wonderful with the homeowners with regard to being
three feet lower, but now that everything has moved up it has caused
concern.
Chairperson Ferguson said that Desert Breezes could aiso argue that they have 79 �
security guards all watching after their property as well as the new development �
to try to make sure that no one robs them.
Ms. Finerty stated that she felt that Desert Breezes was more secure
because of having the development, but the homeowners disagreed and
they would be before the commission tonight if they thought the
wrought iron was not going to be approved.
Mr. Drell clarified that if Desert Breezes did not exist and assuming that the current
Desert Breezes grade was the natural grade and for whatever reason this tract was
at the proposed grade, the City requires a six-foot perimeter wall around a new
subdivision and therefore this subdivision was required to build a six-foot wall.
Where there are grade differences is where the ambiguity comes in on where they
measure the grades and where it is measured six feet. In this particular case since
a wall did exist, the applicant was not having to build it. To a certain degree he
was relieved because of the existence of Desert Breezes by having to build a six-
foot masonry wall along that entire length and that deficiency did exist if they
were to make an interpretation which they sometimes have made that they would
measure it from the perimeter of the outside. That given the fact that the applicant
has already been relieved of the expense of building that length of masonry wall
which is quite expensive, that the requirement to achieve the six-foot wall as
measured from the outside was not unreasonable and was not totally inconsistent
with what is usually required of developments.
�
Commissioner Campbell asked if the wrought iron was also costly to install. Mr. �
Drell said that they could use a tubular type of steel fencing and it was r.ri
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
considerably less costly than a six-foot masonry wall. It might be 53.00 or 54.00
� a lineal foot as opposed to S30 or S40 for a masonry wall. That was the rationale
for the requirement. Commissioner Campbell asked if they were to share this cost
or if the devefoper would pay for the whole thing. Mr. Drell explained that this
was the obligation and if the Desert Breezes wall did not exist, it would be the
obligation of this developer to build the entire wall just like he's bui(ding it on the
north side of his project. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that as it does exist, the
developer didn't have any obligation whatsoever, it just depended on how the
question was phrased. Mr. Drell said that the obligation, as an example, was as
is on the north wall--if this was a haphazard collection of substandard walls of
wood fences and chain link the City would require him to build a masonry wall.
In this case there is a semi-substandard wall and therefore the obligation was to
do what would make it the closest to standard as possible. Commissioner
Jonathan asked what made it substandard. Mr. Drell said that it was not six feet
from the exterior. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this project wasn't before the
commission, if the City's inspectors would be out there telling Desert Breezes to
come into conformity with City standards and elevate it by two feet. Mr. Drell
replied no. What was existing was approved by the County. Commissioner
Jonathan explained that the point he was trying to illustrate was that the
substandard nature of the wall seemed to be from the Desert Breezes standpoint,
not from the applicant's standpoint.
MR. GARY LANE, 43-548 St. Kitts Court in Desert Breezes, stated that
he wanted to point out that their feeling was that the developer was
being relieved of having to build 1400 feet of slump wall and because
`�" of that they felt that they should be able to request that he make some
improvements to the common wall that they would be sharing to make
it safe for both sides. The developer explained that there would be up
to a seven-foot fall on his side of the wall. Mr. Lane said that was not
entirely true because wherever he was that low, he would have to build
a retaining wall on his side to support their foundation or he would have
to have a two to one slope back from the wall to support their
foundation. Therefore, if they got up to the wall they would end up
with a wall that varies from six feet to about four and most would be
below six feet from his side if going right up to the wall. He has to
either have the slope or retaining wall to support their foundation. So
it would fall off the seven back from the wall it wasn't that deep at the
wall. Their homeowners were concerned and since he would be saving
money from having to build this wall it seemed reasonable to request
that he add wrought iron to the top of the wall so that they would all
have at least a six-foot protection which was normally the requirement.
Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Lane's home was against that wall.
Mr. Lane concurred.
Chairperson Ferguson asked how high Mr. Lane's perimeter wall was right now.
Mr. Lane replied that from his side it was five and a half feet high.
+�..
23
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
,
Mr. Alacano readdressed the commission. He said he didn't know if
Ms. Finerty didn't hear him, but the problem area wall was the four-foot
wall and he agreed with that. He didn't recall the lady's name that had
the biggest problem, but if it was four feet on his side and four feet on
her side, he did agree to that 350 feet to raise that wall substantially to
deter someone from going over. He indicated that it was a four-foot
block wall now and it was actually four foot eight inches to the footing
on his side and he suggested raising that up to six feet with block rather
than using the wrought iron just to make it conform with the wall and
he was willing to pay for that when he was doing the rest of the block
wall. He wanted to clarify that and agreed with a wall in that area
because there was a community pool behind there.
Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission
comments.
Commissioner Jonathan said that the issue of the money bothered him a little bit
but one of the nice things about being on the commission was that wasn't
something they had to consider. Looking at it the other way, if a developer comes
to them and says a six-foot wall is expensive and he can't afford it, the
commission was not generally sympathetic to those kinds of arguments. If the
application warranted a six-foot wall or not or warranted certain wall height
requirements of side yards, they generally didn't listen to the applicant and say
we're sorry you can't afford it so you don't have to do it. He didn't think the ;
consideration of who pays for what and monetary issues were relevant to his �
consideration. He was looking at the application and he wanted to compliment Mr.
Alacano. He felt this was a nice project and thought it would be a good addition
to the city. He noted that the discussion sort of sifted down to this 850 feet of
wall which to his mind was not significant to the overall project. However, since
they were there, the monetary aspects were irrelevant, therefore looking at it
strictly from a development standpoint, to him it seemed that the applicant met
the requirements or would meet the six-foot requirement. If there was a
preexisting development that doesn't, he couldn't understand why a new project
would be responsible for that. Desert Breezes, if it wanted a six-foot wall, could
come to the commission and request permission to elevate it by two feet and then
they would probably have Mr. Alacano here objecting, but they would deal with
that later. In terms of placing that restriction on this application when on its own
it independently stood in conformity he couldn't follow the logic of that argument.
Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. She felt the
developer was doing everything he could to please everyone and as far as the
security issue was concerned, she lived in Desert Breezes for three years. She
was in favor of the project without the developer being required to add the
wrought iron to the Desert Breezes wall.
Chairperson Ferguson said that he liked to look at the money issue because he felt
they had to do what made economic sense and he was not the person putting the
capital at risk, but when evaluating competing interests among neighbors, it was
a give and take process. He looked at the Desert Breezes' list of conditions and
it almost outnumbered the city's. He thought that Mr. Alacano had been very
accommodating in working with Desert Breezes. He said that it seemed to him
24
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
that Desert Breezes had a perimeter wall that was just fine next to an open lot and
+`.. now they have a rich developer coming along and in his opinion would get more
security than before, but they want more. He thought that Mr. Alacano indicated
that he was willing to look at the problem areas, but to just start throwing up
wrought iron fencing where they have never enjoyed it before and they would now
have greater security seemed to be over reaching in light of the concessions
already being made. The other issue raised that had surface appeal was that
people were told that there would be open style fencing and were the
commission's decision up to Ms. Finerty and Mr. Alacano that might have some
legitimacy, but it wasn't--it was up to the commission. The residents might have
been assured, but the commission was still an independent decision-making body
and despite their interplay over the Freeway Overlay Zone, they do have an open
mind and tend to change their minds. He concurred wholeheartedly with
Commissioner Jonathan and Commissioner Campbell. He didn't think the
developer should have to pay for improvements to the Desert Breezes wall which
has been there and would now be next to a nice subdivision.
Commissioner Beaty felt that was very well said. Commissioner Fernandez also
agreed with the other commissioners and thought this was a great project and was
glad to see this area being developed. Chairperson Ferguson also thanked Mr.
Alacano in that the proposed development was brought up under the change of
zone for Project Area 4 and they didn't evaluate it at that time and he thought it
was expressed that if it was Mr. Alacano developing these homes they wouldn't
have a problem with them and since he would be, Chairperson Ferguson was very
pleased with the project.
�
Mr. Drell said that he would like some clarification on the conditions of approval.
Assuming that the commission went forward, relative to the wall, there was a
requirement for a six-foot wall that would be measured from Mr. Alacano's side,
but there would be a requirement for him to improve or provide that existing wall
to the extent of making it a six-foot wall. Chairperson Ferguson said that was
what he had in mind. Commissioner Jonathan suggested that it be a block wall.
Chairperson Ferguson indicated it should meet city code. Mr. Drell said that if it
is determined that or assumed that the existing wall was built capable of being a
six-foot wall, which a standard wall detail does, then theoretically enough block
should be able to be added to make it a full six foot wall. He wasn't sure whether
anyone knew anything about that wall or whether that determination could be
made. The issue would be that if determined to be feasible by a certified engineer
or the Building Department, then it would be a block wall. If it wasn't then it
would have to be wrought iron fencing to make the six-foot wall or some
alternative. Six feet measured from Mr. Alacano's side as determined to be
feasible by the City's Building Department. Chairperson Ferguson concurred. Mr.
Drell said the other conditions were agreed to by the applicant. Mr. Alacano
concurred.
�.
25
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
3
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1805, approving TT 28549, subject
to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
None.
X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMtTTEE - (No meeting)
B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting)
C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (April 17, 1997)
Mr. Drell said that basically there was a lot of discussion on what the
committee should be doing and he felt the answer would be that the +
direct supervision should be changed from the Economic Development
Manager located in RDA to the Business Assistance Center which would
be developing a broad strategy of attracting and retaining businesses ir�
the city and primarily concentrating on retail and tourist associated
businesses. They would be bring those policies to the EDAC and
projects as they come forward.
D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (April 21 , 1997)
Mr. Drell said the committee revisited the amendment to the Residential
Estate zone permitting horses. Due to some concerns from surrounding
property owners relative to the keeping of horses and a request by a
horse keeper in the area to allow for more horses than proposed, that
was being restudied and there was some discussion of that at the
meeting. They reversed their recommendation and said that they would
support the designation of all existing horse used properties as legally
non-conforming and give them a continuing right to maintain that use
as long as it wasn't abandoned for a period of six months and that no
other horse use would be allowed on the rest of those acre parcels.
That caused the organization of those acre parcels to fight again for
their horse rights which they had under the County. He was sending a
letter to all of those property owners, and to the surrounding ones,
describing exactly what the new ordinance entails and it would be
before the council in June.
E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR
PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting)
26
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
�. F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (April 16 and 30, 1997)
Commissioner Campbell said the committee discussed billboards on the
freeway and what would be placed on them. Mr. Drell said that one
thing they were pursuing was a Caltrans program that is used elsewhere
in the state and it allows not only symbols but actual (ogos right on the
side of the freeway. For some reason, although in our district 8 there
is a guy in charge of that program and it has been in effect for five
years, he has never approved one single request and one was ARCO in
Cathedral City and ARCO said they had many meetings with the guy
and couldn't get anywhere. Staff would be meeting with the Director
of District 8 on Friday to inquire why they haven't approved these signs
in this area. They would probably be much more visible than any other
signs that are offsite. Commissioner Beaty said that he has seen those
signs in Flagstaff Arizona and at each exit there was a sign and it had
exactly which restaurants were there and which motels were available
and he found that helpful and attractive. Mr. Drell said that they
allowed them on the freeway and then at the offramp they allowed
directional signs to tell which were on which side. For some reason this
district has resisted approving anything.
XI. COMMENTS
1 . Commissioner Beaty said that the former Pasta House building was
'�► discussed at commission a few meetings ago and they approved some
changes and he noted that there was a church banner out there Sunday
and didn't recall that being approved. Mr. Drell said that as far as he
knows, the hotel was proceeding with their plan. Commissioner Beaty
said the sign was covered with a banner, but he didn't remember which
specific church it was for. He wasn't anti-church, but didn't know if
that was an approved use. Commissioner Campbe(I afso saw the sign
and noted that it was removed the next day. She suggested that they
might have had some kind of church convention at the hotel.
Chairperson Ferguson asked if someone could call and ask them. Mr.
Drell said he would call and find out what their plans are. Mr. Drell
confirmed that a church would not be approved and the use of that
building as an assembly hall probably required more parking than a
restaurant.
2. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the Cook Street Interchange was
scheduled to have its dedication and grand opening at 8:15 a.m. this
Friday and he was told they were invited but had not been sent
invitations. Commissioner Campbell said she was planning to attend.
3. Commissioner Beaty asked how one went about requesting that the city
look at landscaping on Carlotta Drive. He wanted to formally request
that. He asked whom he should talk to. Mr. Drell replied Tom Bassler
since it had to do with the assessment district. Commissioner Beaty
said that it was more than that since there was a vacant lot essentially
'�"' right in front of the retirement community that has never had anything
27
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1997
�
done to it and he thought it was city property and was a real eyesore
and two commissioners saw it every day. Commissioner Fernandez
agreed. Chairperson Ferguson suggested sending Public Works a copy
of the Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Drell said that he would call
and inquire about it.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adjourning
the meeting to May 20, 1997 by minute motion. Carried 4-0. The meeting was
adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
� -
��' -� c-
PHE R. S ITH, Acting Secr tary
ATTE :
�
J ME O GU ON, Chairperson
P Im Dese t PI�nnYng . ommission
�t \\� ,�
�
�
�
28