The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0805 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - AUGUST 5, 1997 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE `r * * * * * * * * * * * ► * * * * * * * * * * * * ► 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 Members Absent: George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Staff Present: Phil Drell Martin Alvarez Mark Greenwood Tonya Monroe Jerry Clark IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the July 15, 1997 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the July 15, 1997 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 2-0-1 (Chairperson Ferguson abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: None. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. v MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 Mr. Drell suggested hearing Miscellaneous Item #C before the public hearing items. Commission concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, moving Miscellaneous Item #C forward on the Agenda by minute motion. Carried 3-0. C. DISCUSSION OF CURRENT PROGRAMS FOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE BY THE CITY'S URBAN FORESTER, JERRY CLARK Mr. Jerry Clark, the contract consultant/urban forester for the City of Palm Desert, stated that part of his responsibilities as the city's consultant has been to review ongoing landscape problems of which one of those problems was the health and longevity of trees in parking lots. Prior to his joining the city, there was some direction given and information provided as to what types of trees should be planted and how those trees should be planted in parking lots, but over the years it has been discovered that that information was erroneous and has caused some problems as far as the longevity and health and care of those trees. He said that he was asked by Mr. Drell to provide revisions to the existing parking lot ordinance and in that ordinance they were looking at modifying the tree selection list and they were looking at removing some information, in particular some direction as to providing root barriers around tree roots as that only encourages the instability of trees and did not encourage stability. They had also been looking at developing in the parking lot tree selection list a diversity of trees that were more conducive to hot temperatures and radiated heat from parking lot asphalt areas. They were also proposing some specific guidelines on how to properly prune, take care of and water those trees once they are established. The whole intent was that they would be seeing greater benefits and gains from these trees which provide both aesthetics and shading and they would be seeing less liability issues that were a result of the poor selection of those trees that had transpired in the past. He said that summarized what was transpiring with the parking lot ordinance. He indicated that there were a lot of other activities that he is involved with such as developing planning guidelines for developers and how to properly select plant materials within the public right- of-way area; developing pruning, planting, irrigation and watering guidelines that would be provided as an addendum through the planning guidelines. All of that was for the benefit of the community and citizens at large to provide education and technical resource and information for those individuals who want to know how to properly select plant material within the desert area and how to properly maintain them. The benefit would be long lasting material which should require little maintenance long term. Mr. Drell noted that there was a question on future enforcement and how we would deal with past failures. He said that before the city would go out and start hammering private property owners on their failures in parking lots, the city 4 4 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 tow should correct their own. The first task was to go out in the City Hall parking lot and correct the problems there and the next would be to deal with Presidents Plaza. He felt they should create the idealized condition and then they would have the moral authority to go out and show people that not only should they do as we say, but do as we do. Mr. Clark said that with the schematic of the Presidents Plaza preliminary plan included the diversity of tree selections/species that they recommended. In addition, the trees would be planted in larger openings than those originally recommended and would increase in size from a four by four area up to as large as a seven by nine planting area, or as large as possible, and that was to accommodate the development of the rooting structure as well as to minimize any damage to the trunk of the tree due to vehicle overhang. He noted that in the future more consideration would be given to the selection of the plant material adjacent to light fixtures or light poles to make sure that the location of the tree was appropriate for that particular location. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Clark what size of plant container he was proposing. Mr. Clark replied a minimum sized tree would be at least a 24" box tree, but they were providing more strict guidelines on that stating that the height of the tree should be in the range of ten and 12 feet tall and the canopy should be a width of three to four feet. The purpose of that was as the ordinance presently stands, and the whole intent of the landscape planting in parking lots was to provide for shade, they were hoping that by the tenth year of the establishment of those trees they would see at least 50% of that parking lot shaded. In order for that to happen, they had to start with a certain size of tree to begin with and certain size planting holes, as well as good care and maintenance. Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Clark if when he was talking about the City's Parking Lot Ordinance, or if he was talking about the Parking Lot Tree Planting Master Plan. Mr. Clark said no, he was referring to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.58.120, the Parking Lot Ordinance. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the revisions would be a change of ordinance which would have to go through Council. Mr. Clark concurred. Chairperson Ferguson asked what the Parking Lot Tree Planting Master Plan was; Mr. Clark indicated that the Master Plan was to identify potential spots where trees could be located in a parking lot, whether it was in a middle aisle, in the perimeter planting area, or whether it was in the elongated aisle plantings. All of those areas needed to be looked at very carefully for proper tree selection. Chairperson Ferguson asked how, if at all, that related to the ordinance. Mr. Clark stated that it essentially became a guideline to the ordinance as far as tree selection. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that would become effective prospectively once it was adopted. Mr. Clark concurred. Chairperson Ferguson asked how long it would take for the City to come into compliance. Mr. Clark said that they have been working on the parking lot ordinance for a couple of months and they have developed a subcommittee made up of approximately 15 professionals throughout the area `'"' 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 who represented the horticultural industry, landscape architects, nurserymen, and they were in the final stages of reviewing that and coming back for final correction and it was their intent to submit the ordinance to the City Council by the end of September. Chairperson Ferguson noted that Mr. Drell said that the moral thing to do would be for the City to clean up our own shade problems and then expect everyone else to, and while he didn't disagree, he asked if it wouldn't also be equally moral to let everyone know who was now in noncompliance that they would be expected to be in compliance within a certain grace period from adoption of this ordinance. Mr. Drell said that technically, the City's Property Maintenance Ordinance which was adopted about a year ago gave the City the authority to go after all of these properties. He noted that this would first be an educational process to go to these people and tell them what needed to be done to bring their landscape plan back into compliance. He didn't know the time table and depending on the direction from the City Council, he assumed enforcement would involve identifying the worst cases and starting with those. If that was the direction from Council that is what staff would do. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the City was working on the problem, why the private sector couldn't be working on it as well, especially known violators who know they are in violation. Mr. Drell agreed. Chairperson Ferguson said he assumed that the City could not legally require them to hold up the standards of the new ordinance that gets passed in September, but the conditions of approval said they had to comply with the old ordinance and that was the compliance they were having a problem with. Mr. Drell said projects have an approved plan that they let disappear and the City's Property Maintenance Ordinance which was passed a year ago says that they are required, like any part of a precise plan of design which is approved where they can't arbitrarily change the design of their building, they can't arbitrarily start changing the design of their elevations or the physical design of the parking lot. The landscaping, as part of the city's whole "approval", couldn't arbitrarily be changed by letting the plant material die. The big problem was that it is easier for the City to stop people from doing things rather than forcing them to do good things. He said we ourselves didn't have the knowledge to allow us to properly plant our own parking lots. Chairperson Ferguson noted that was why the City retained Mr. Clark. Mr. Drell concurred and stated that a mitigating factor was that a lot of these people did the things the city said was appropriate and we learned that even if they tried as hard as they could they may not have succeeded in keeping those plants live and healthy. We were creating a lose-lose situation which to a certain degree mitigated the City's ability to hammer on people, so he hoped initially we would try a softer sell approach to get older projects to acknowledge that the condition reflects badly on their property and go on from there. Chairperson Ferguson said that as he saw it part of Mr. Clark's job was to help some of these people come into compliance by planting the right type of vegetation. Mr. Clark agreed and explained that he would also act as a technical resource to work with developers who have had problems in the past and advise them how to correct mistakes, properly plant material and properly select that plant material. Mr. Clark added that although the City would have better regulations that would not necessarily absolutely guarantee that a plant would survive because there were a handful of 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 tow items that had to happen for that material to survive and it all began with proper planting, proper plant selection, proper location, inspection of the plant material as it comes off the truck from nurseries, proper planting techniques, inspection of the material as it is installed and the ongoing care and maintenance and if at any point in time that irrigation system should shut down, that could possibly cause the demise of the material right then and there. They could not guarantee that plants would survive, but they were guaranteeing that if they follow these procedures, the material will live a lot longer and they should see greater results because of it. Commissioner Beaty asked if the recommendations would be coming back to the Planning Commission before it is finalized and before Council. Mr. Clark said it could. Mr. Drell stated that if the commission wanted to review and comment, they could. Mr. Clark clarified that it was a revision to the parking lot ordinance. Commissioner Beaty said that he was probably more interested as an individual and a biologist. He asked if this could be made available to residents of the city who were interested in planting. Mr. Clark said it was their intent to provide good educational programs for the general public and encourage them to incorporate certain types of plant material that are adaptable in the Coachella Valley and how to properly take care of the material. He said they planned to develop educational programs specifically for them for the end of this year or early next year. ... Chairperson Ferguson thanked Mr. Clark for his presentation. He also indicated that a study session on the revisions would be helpful to the commission. Action: None. Chairperson Ferguson noted that more people had arrived and reiterated that under Oral Communications he said that was the time and place to comment on any non-hearing agenda items. He indicated that two weeks ago the commission discussed the Lowe development proposal on the southeast corner of El Paseo and Highway 1 1 1 next to the Sandpiper project. He stated that item was not scheduled for a hearing tonight, so if anyone present wanted to comment on that issue, now would be the time under Oral Communications to do so. Commission would not be holding a public hearing. He asked if anyone wished to address the commission. There was no response. 1rr 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. CUP 97-10 - RICK MURO/DR. PETER GREENBERG, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit for a 22,000 square foot health club with future beer and wine license in part of the vacant industrial building at 74-824 Lennon Place. Mr. Drell indicated there was a revised plan distributed to 'commission which varied slightly from what the staff report said. It added 12 or 13 parking spaces for a total of 79 spaces. The applicant was also proposing ten spaces inside that building which formerly was reported as a potential kids gym and the applicant was now saying it wouldn't be a kids gym, it would be used for warehousing of vehicles and for his parking. At the original public hearing considerable objection was received by Mr. Lupo, the property owner to the west. The commission received additional correspondence from him expressing concern about existing problems he has with people parking in fire lanes and a potential liability problem he envisioned with unauthorized athletic members parking on his property and being injured and suing him. In addressing this issue Mr. Muro agreed to provide a security guard/parking attendant to specifically direct his members to designated parking spaces on the building's property or on the street. He would make it as a matter of policy to instruct all the members where they should park and his insurance company has agreed to provide Mr. Lupo with a $1 million Certificate of Insurance naming him as an additional insurer in the event that an athletic club member filed suit against Mr. Lupo due to injury on his property. The insurance company would require that Mr. Lupo have primary insurance for liability for his own property as well. Staff believed that those two concerns could be met and that led them back to the fundamental question of if there was enough parking onsite or in the street directly adjacent to the property which provides for street parking for the proposed use. Mr. Drell indicated that Mr. Muro provided a club attendance analysis where he assumed that his current membership of approximately 700 members triples and distributing those members along the same time schedule as they do now (between 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.), based on that analysis he would have a maximum member load during these peak periods of 96. Adding to that the number of employees (seven or eight), which would total 103, which was consistent with staff's analysis where they looked at each particular activity room in the club and projected how many athletes could comfortably utilize that room added to the number of employees, staff came up with 115 and felt that the triple analysis was fairly consistent with staff's. Mr. Muro showed, in combination with the onsite spaces and offsite spaces on the street, 157. At this particular site offsite spaces were particularly plentiful because the whole side across the street which was the Waste Management lot without curb cuts and therefore had a fairly continuous availability of street spaces for which there are no competing businesses that would have some rights of priority for those spaces. With the additional spaces, Mr. Muro's offer to address the specific 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 .. concerns of Mr. Lupo, and the conditioning of that offer relative to the conditions of insurance and the security attendant, staff would recommend approval. He also indicated there was one amendment to the conditions, number 13, which would read that 79 parking spaces would be developed onsite outside the proposed health club. He asked the applicant to clarify if those ten spaces would be provided as a matter of condition inside the building and if that was the case, it should be raised to at least 89 spaces being developed onsite to serve the proposed health club. Mr. Drell also clarified that relative to the 7,000 square feet, which would now be devoted to either parking or warehouse, any change in that use other than a warehouse would have to come back as an amendment to this conditional use permit. Commissioner Campbell clarified that Mr. Muro has 90 spaces right now because the number 49 was written down twice. Chairperson Ferguson asked for confirmation that staff determined that Mr. Muro needed 115 parking spaces. Of those he has 90 onsite; therefore, he needs 25 offsite and he has up to 137 if just the street immediately in front of his building was counted and across the street from his building. Mr. Drell said that Mr. Smith said there were 68 on street spaces immediately adjacent to this site on both sides of the street (158). Chairperson Ferguson said that in going through the minutes and listening to the tape there was some issue as to whether Mr. Muro needed 150 or 115, but under either scenario it appeared that he had sufficient parking. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the public hearing was still open and asked if the applicant would address the commission first, then anyone in favor of this application, then anyone opposed to this application, and then a brief rebuttal period for the applicant before closing the public hearing. MR. RICK MURO, 73-944 Olive Court in Palm Desert, stated that for the past two years he has been working very diligently attempting to expand his health club in Palm Desert. His goal has been to have the opportunity to provide service to the local residents and the senior clientele in a facility that they could be proud of. He said that he has negotiated on almost every piece of land or building that would be suitable for his use over the two years. Those included the 1 1 1 Town Center, the corner of Fred Waring and Monterey which was turned down by the City Council, the vacant Circuit City building which has some CC&Rs which prohibited their type of usage, the property adjacent to Moller's Gardens at the end of Fred Waring, the Desert Crossing center, the old Sprouse Ritz's building that has been empty for about nine years, the property north of First Bank on Monterey Avenue, both ends of El Paseo and Highway 1 1 1 , and now the proposed building on Lennon. For one reason or another the other locations didn't work. He was devoted to making this proposal the one that works for them. He said that it meant the livelihood of his family and his employees' families. As Mr. Drell pointed out, there were four basic issues brought up at the last tiAw 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 meeting: 1) parking. They have 90 spaces onsite and they were asking for the ability to use the ones just in front of them which took them to just over 150 spaces which based on his scenario and analysis and the one done by staff showed that they would far exceed what was necessary. They would have a security/parking attendant that wouldn't allow anyone, whether it be Mr. Lupo's people or his own people, to park in any undesignated area including the fire lanes. In terms of Mr. Lupo's liability, as shown in the commission's packet, Mr. Muro provided a letter from his insurance company that says they would be happy to mitigate all of his liability by provided an indemnity certificate. In terms of their beer and wine that was an issue, the beer and wine license was nothing more than an amenity to their facility for their members to use. It was not an open bar and they would have a security guard there. In terms of Desert Heat being another applicant to use that building that was no longer the case and they would be using that space for additional parking. As he pointed out to commission, Mr. Lupo and Mr. Eliante in their letters, he was sure they could be congenial neighbors at that space and he was sure they would realize that their presence was good for them now and in the future. He felt they could peacefully coexist as neighbors as all the letters he provided to commission from the other neighbors endorsed his program. He said he has done whatever he could to this point and would continue to do what was necessary to make this work. Therefore, he urged commission to approve his project. ' Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Muro planned to make parking guidelines part of the clientele's contract. Mr. Muro replied absolutely and whatever he could do to make sure that it is laid out factually so that everyone was well aware of what was important. He said that at Mr. Drell's and Mr. Smith's request, they put in a rear entrance into the athletic club. Typically it was a difficult thing to do to put in two separate entrances because they had to funnel the people to one main desk where they could check in. They put in a separate large entrance to the back which would be covered to allow people to come in from that back entrance to encourage people to park back there. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the proposal. MR. ROBERT HESS, 48-260 Center Court in Palm Desert, stated that he was the owner of the building where the proposed health club would be located. His building as been vacant for more than one year. Not being in an enterprise zone or having financial incentives from the state or local government made if very difficult to lease a building of this size. He said he needed the commission's approval of this application. He indicated that Mr. Muro has worked very closely with the neighborhood businesses and has more than adequately addressed their concerns and had garnered a lot of support. He said he was aware that Mr. Lupo has opposed this use and a noted that Mr. Lupo previously made two wholesale offers on Mr. Hess's 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 .r. building in an attempt to purchase it as a vacant building. He wanted to stress how important an economic impact the commission's approval would be and urged approval. He said he would continue to work with Mr. Muro, whom he felt presented himself as a very astute businessman and professional in his own right. He appreciated that in a prospective tenant since he wouldn't rent to just anyone, he wanted someone that would be there permanent and Mr. Muro was willing to sign a ten-year lease. He said he was willing to lease this building to Mr. Muro for ten years and he thought that working together, especially with the ten off street parking stalls next door, he had two buses in there, two motor homes, two overnight cars that go out during the day, one cougar and one suburban. There would be space for Mr. Muro. Commissioner Beaty asked if this were to be approved as a conditional use permit, what would happen if they found out in two years that this just didn't work and the commission had to rescind the conditional use permit. He asked what would happen to the ten-year lease. Mr. Hess replied that was a legal question and he probably shouldn't address it. If in the opinion of City Council, not so much the neighbors, because right now the neighbors were using his parking lot and they were blocking the fire lanes. Mr. Muro felt that with that coverage and outside help that wouldn't happen. He said he couldn't be there all the time to knock on Mr. Lupo's doors to ask them to move their rigs when they are in the fire lanes. He thought it would really benefit access to emergency vehicles. He said he wished he could answer Commissioner Beaty's question directly. Chairperson Ferguson said that Mr. Hess could lease his property to Mr. Muro, but the commission would regulate the use that he conducts on it and he thought that the two would be independent and anything else they came up with to the contrary would be between Mr. Hess and Muro and was not sure the City was bound by their lease agreement. Ms. Dryer, from the City Attorney's office, concurred. Mr. Drell said that they would try to solve any problems long before the City revoked the CUP. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the application. MR. RAY ELIANTE, 74-794 Lennon Place, stated that he occupies the building next to the proposed CUP. His business was Country Club Mirror and Glass. He felt that Mr. Hess made an astounding point. Mr. Hess said that tenants were blocking fire lanes and were presently using his spaces. Mr. Eliante said that they used his space in the past just prior to his repaving. They have not done so since because Mr. Hess asked them to pay him rent for the use of those spaces, so they were taking up spaces in the street. There were other tenants using his spaces, however, there •.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 were businesses on either side of him that were blocking the fire lanes. He hoped the commission had seen the photographs he submitted and reminded the commission that those pictures were taken off-season and this was probably the two worst months in terms of usage. The most usage was nine or ten months out of the year. It was a constant hassle. Mr. Hess also mentioned that he was using his building for rental space. He approached Mr. Eliante numerous times in the past, and as recently as a month ago, to rent his space. Mr. Hess said that if Mr. Eliante would take his space, he would vacate those vehicles immediately and make that available to him. His question was, if they were hard pressed and not meeting the demand now for parking, for the 8,000 square feet, where were those people going to park. By Mr. Hess's own admission, those fire lanes were being blocked now and they could not operate their business as it is now. In addition to that, he said that Mr. Lino, who has been Mr. Eliante's neighbor for some time, it was not fair that they had to elevate their voices and go after each other when they have a problem with the City enforcing the fire lanes and enforcing the parking and they have come to terms in that they know they have a problem and they deal with it on a regular basis. Mr. Eliante said he trusted that the commission had read his letter and asked that commission please consider the existing parking problem and not whitewash this. He knew that Mr. Muro had really tried to relocate his business, but this was not the place for it. It would not work in two months and has not worked for them. This was the off-season and it would become very congested and nothing had been made for this additional 8,000 square feet and it would be a problem. He asked that coo commission do the hard thing, but the right thing. Chairperson Ferguson noted that he has pictures before him that all showed encroachments into the fire lane and since the building is vacant, he assumed this was because of Mr. Eliante or Mr. Lupo. Chairperson Ferguson asked whose fire lane that was. Mr. Eliante replied the pictures were of the fire lane at his location and Mr. Lupo's building. Picture numbers 5 and 6 were the location at the east end which were Mr. Hess's and the other building leased to him. Chairperson Ferguson noted that in picture number 6 there were two vans and asked for clarification as to which was Mr. Hess's. Mr. Eliante indicated that the building to the left was Mr. Hess's. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was Mr. Hess's van. Mr. Eliante said no, it belonged to the gentlemen working there with the business to the east of Mr. Hess's building. 10 arii MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 `•• Chairperson Ferguson noted that Mr. Hess wasn't in violation, it was the people next to him. Mr. Eliante said that was correct and felt the photograph didn't depict how narrow the opening was and indicated that a vehicle wouldn't even fit through there. He said those gentlemen, because they have limited space, often use that alley as an extended shop; they paint there, build things there, etc. Chairperson Ferguson asked why the City shouldn't allow Mr. Muro to develop because other people wanted to use his driveway as an extended shop. Mr. Eliante felt that was a good point, but the problem was that there wasn't adequate parking for Mr. Muro and there wasn't enough for the tenants around him who were using the fire lane for parking spaces now. Chairperson Ferguson said he read the minutes from the last meeting and looked at the site plan and Mr. Muro has 90 spaces onsite and 67 on the street for a total of 157 spaces. He asked how Mr. Eliante could say that Mr. Muro didn't have adequate parking. Mr. Eliante questioned the street parking because his employees used up a good portion of that because they encroached well beyond the street area �.. where Mr. Hess's building is. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Eliante had 36 employees and 8 parking spaces. Mr. Eliante agreed that he has 36 employees and they have four tenants in their building. They leave two vacant parking spaces for customers. Chairperson Ferguson noted that Mr. Eliante wanted the street parking, but didn't want Mr. Muro to have any street parking. Mr. Eliante felt it was a difference in the amount of clientele that they have versus what Mr. Muro has. They have 36-37 employees and two customers every four hours. They don't have that flux of customers coming in and Mr. Muro had a constant flow of cars coming and going. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Eliante reviewed the submittal by Mr. Muro on when his customers would be using the facility and the volumes. Mr. Eliante said he had. Chairperson Ferguson asked if disagreed with that information. %MW 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 Mr. Eliante said he disagreed with that, knowing that they were in the desert and people come and go. He understood that most were in morning and in the afternoon. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Eliante disagreed with staff's onsite observations of Gold's Gym and other analyses which indicated that most of the operation would occur when Mr. Eliante was not open for business. Mr. Eliante said he has been to Gold's Gym and has seen the parking problems they have there and with due respect, he felt it'was a problem and needed to be addressed a little closer. MR. PAUL LUPO, 79-355 Camino Amarillo in La Quinta, stated that he owns the building at 74-794 Lennon Place and 41-700 Corporate Way. He noted that the commission had his letters and knew his position, but he wanted to recap. He felt the main issue was parking. He didn't agree with the numbers and felt there was an overwhelming, excessive amount of demand on that corner which was unnecessary. He thought the problems would get worse with the growth of the gym and assumed Mr. Muro's gym would continue to grow and would need more parking in the future. Regarding the insurance issue, he asked what guarantee he had, what guarantee the City could give him, and what guarantee Mr. Muro could give him that he would pay the insurance premiums. When there is nonpayment of insurance premiums that meant they had noncoverage. When they had noncoverage, they had problems. He said there were no assurances or guarantees, none on that issue. His insurance carrier continued to inform him that it was a problem and would be a continuing problem and if it became a frequency problem, there would be non-renewal. He had no control and no guarantees on Mr. Muro paying the premiums. That was a big issue. He said if there was parking in those fire lanes and those fire trucks couldn't get to his building and it was burning down because of Mr. Muro's trucks or cars or his usage and his parking attendant who called in sick that day was running around that whole corner trying to regulate all these parking needs. He felt they should face reality and asked what reality was. As Mr. Eliante said, he has a simple need and Mr. Lupo said that most of his tenants all had minimal needs. This was a massive, extensive need of parking in an industrial park and this use had no place there. This was not the place for it. He said they should ask themselves if their building was suitable, 29,000 square feet, for 115 parking spaces, why did they need all of these safeguards. Why did they need parking attendants, why did they need additional liability insurance coverage? He felt it was like going into a bank and asking why there was a guard there to protect the money. He didn't think there could be proper enforcement by anyone or any guarantees by anyone and he was adamant about this and opposed this as his tenants do and thanked the commission for listening. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 tow Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Lupo why his tenants were in violation of parking in the fire lanes if they have adequate parking or adequate space in his building for their business. She asked him if he should be controlling his own tenants. Mr. Lupo said he has gone to his tenants and explained to them the law. He has posted signs and they were human beings and they have clients that were human beings and asked what controls he had. He asked if he should call the Fire Marshal on his own tenants and if it was his responsibility to enforce that. He didn't know. Chairperson Ferguson noted that it was his building that would burn down. Mr. Lupo said he understood that and felt this was a good example. Unless he was there 24 hours a day running around like the parking attendant would be doing, it wasn't feasible and wasn't reality and wouldn't happen. Certain things couldn't be controlled and that was one of the things. He admitted that he hasn't been able to control that, even when he has told them that this was the law and that they were breaking the law. Commissioner Campbell indicated that Mr. Muro would have a parking attendant to control this and it would save Mr. Lupo's building also if there was a fire. �.. Mr. Lupo asked if that was reality--a parking attendant. Commissioner Campbell felt that would be a better situation than the pictures showed right now. Mr. Lupo stated that he didn't accept that that was reality. He didn't think one parking attendant was going to be able to control an influx of 150 cars. He asked what kind of confrontations they would have and didn't agree with it and didn't feel it was reality. Chairperson Ferguson said that in fairness, and noted that he and Mr. Lupo knew each other and hoped Mr. Lupo would realize his comment was in fairness, that it was almost impossible for Mr. Lupo to insist that Mr. Muro get additional insurance, get a parking monitor, then beat him over the head with it when Mr. Lupo asked for those safeguards. Mr. Muro's first proposal didn't have either one of those things and he understood that he included those as concessions to Mr. Lupo and for his benefit. He felt it was a little disingenuous to accuse him of not being able to handle this problem when he has bent over backwards to accommodate Mr. Lupo's concerns. Mr. Lupo said he stated his concerns, he didn't think there was a resolution and didn't accept Mr. Muro's resolutions. He didn't think they were adequately reasonable or realistic. He asked how it would be controlled, how it would be monitored, how it would be enforced and how he could "'" 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 control Mr. Muro's finances and payment of a premium. He could ask for it and demand it, but how would he ever get that assurance. He said it only took one issue, one incident and one time for this to be a massive incident and a problem as they all know in life what can happen. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that wasn't true of any development, anywhere. He asked if Mr. Muro had a path across Mr. Lupo's property. Mr. Lupo felt that if there was a lesser use of that 29,000 square feet, there would be less exposure and less of a problem, in'his opinion. Chairperson Ferguson clarified that Mr. Lupo wasn't willing to accept Mr. Muro's covenant that he would do it and wouldn't accept a condition in the CUP that says he has to do it, he just didn't trust Mr. Muro under any circumstances. Mr. Lupo said it wasn't about trust, it was about control. He had no control or assurances on Mr. Muro's finances and his ability to pay his premiums. Chairperson Ferguson asked what assurances Mr. Muro had that Mr. Lupo's tenants' vans that are blocking Mr. Muro's fire lane wouldn't impede a fire truck trying to put out a fire at his building. As he saw it, it was kind of a mutual trust. i Mr. Lupo said that he felt it was because of the exposure factor. Mr. Muro had a larger need that was harder to control because of that exposure versus a minimal exposure that they have. Even though he has tried on those fire lanes, and maybe that was something that Mr. Eliante took pictures of that and might only happen once a year, this was a possibility of happening all the time. He felt that was the issue here. The exposure and the overwhelming parking. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Lupo would be happy if the commission added a condition that required the Fire Marshal to go out and inspect both alleyways to insure that the fire lanes are properly stenciled, property signed and then have their enforcement personnel come by and monitor it to make sure no one is parking in them, including Mr. Lupo's tenants. Mr. Lupo said that there have been calls made to the Fire Marshal concerning this and he has never even showed up, not once. On a few occasions there have been calls made to the Fire Marshal. Again, he asked what assurances there were that the Fire Marshal would show up on a continuing basis and monitor this thing. If Mr. Muro had a need of 25 or 50 cars, in his opinion it would be different. That was his concern. That would be more manageable and more controllable by Mr. Muro or his attendant or the Fire Marshal, but when they talking about 150 vehicles and on street parking and off street parking and one attendant running around, he just couldn't see the realism in it. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 tow Chairperson Ferguson said that in terms of enforcement, under a CUP the Planning Commission retained continuing jurisdiction to make sure Mr. Muro was in compliance. On its surface Chairperson Ferguson felt it appeared to him that Mr. Muro should be given an opportunity to try and operate. If the commission approved this use and in a month from now there were ongoing violations, Mr. Lupo could certainly notify him and the Planning Commission and noted that on the commission's agenda tonight there was an item to discuss the Southwest Community Church's CUP which was approved in April and the commission received a letter from an adjoining neighbor who says there are violations and the commission would be discussing whether to hold a hearing to revoke their CUP. It was not like Mr. Lupo would be stuck with the situation for ten years and could give his word that there would be ongoing enforcement from the Planning Commission if there are violations of the CUP. Mr. Lupo said that was on the parking issue, but not on the liability insurance. Chairperson Ferguson said that was on every issue of Mr. Muro's CUP. Mr. Lupo asked what assurances he had that the premiums would be paid. Chairperson Ferguson said that if the premium is not paid, Mr. Lupo should bring that to the attention of the Planning Commission because Mr. Muro would be in W.. violation of his CUP. Mr. Drell said that was a condition of the CUP and they would require Mr. Muro to show proof that the insurance is paid. Commissioner Beaty noted that he is required to do that for his customers. He said that Mr. Lupo could have it as a condition of the Certificate of Insurance that Mr. Lupo must be notified if there is a nonpayment of premium from the insurance company. Mr. Lupo asked what would happen in a bankruptcy situation. Chairperson Ferguson said that they couldn't plan for every contingency, only reasonable contingencies and it seemed to him that the policy was a reasonable safeguard for Mr. Lupo's interests. Mr. Lupo asked if in an insolvency situation and the premium wasn't paid, he would be notified that Mr. Muro wasn't covering him adequately and that same day there was an incident, there would be no coverage. Chairperson Ferguson noted that lightening could strike Mr. Muro on the same day there was an incident. Mr. Lupo didn't think that was the same thing. Chairperson Ferguson said that they could only do so much to give Mr. Lupo reasonable assurance that the enjoyment of his property was protected to the V"' 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 same extent that Mr. Muro's right and Mr. Hess's rights to their property were protected. MR. DUKIC, owner of Lino's Mercedes Service in Palm Desert, said that there was a problem on the corner by Mr. Lupo because of the lack of parking and he felt there wasn't enough room on the street for parking. He and his tenant also parked on the street and he felt that there wasn't enough parking available. Commissioner Beaty noted that Mr. Eliante indicated that he has notified the local fire department and the Fire Marshal, the police department and the City's code enforcement and two warnings had been issued in seven years. He asked if staff had checked to see if that was true, what happened with those warnings, and who issued those warnings and asked if they had control over violations. Mr. Drell stated that in this situation there is a property owner who controls neither his own tenants, employees nor customers and he seemed unwilling to control his own people who are violating this fire lane. Staff could find out what the policy is of the Fire Marshal on private property when they receive these complaints. Commissioner Beaty said he would like some clarification from Mr. Eliante of his statement. He said Mr. Eliante who issued the warnings and what the outcome was, and if Mr. Eliante called and reported the violations. Mr. Eliante said he called the city and asked for code enforcement. They referred him to the Fire Marshal who in turn referred him to a Fire Marshal master. In addition to that he called the Sheriff's Department and even flagged down a Sheriff down one day and that was when the two warnings came in. That was because he physically got a Sheriff who issued a warning that time, but said that next time the violators would be ticketed and nothing has transpired. Mr. Drell asked who the violators were. Mr. Eliante replied that it was numerous building occupants. Mr. Drell asked if they were occupants of Mr. Eliante's own building. Mr. Eliante said it was his own building, the building he occupies, and the adjacent building. He said he was not as concerned about the building at the east end because he wasn't there, but the violations were as great if not greater there. They have tried to enforce it and a lot of it was employees and a lot were customers because customers didn't have parking, so the customers would use the fire lanes and he asked how they could get after customers for using the fire lanes when they didn't have parking for them. That made it very difficult. He said that Mr. Lupo has tried very diligently to keep the fire lanes clear, but he didn't get any support with any bite. It was like having CC&Rs and a Board of Directors that say something can't be done, but there were no teeth in the CC&Rs 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 �.r that controlled the situation. Mr. Lupo has tried very hard to control the situation in the fire lanes. Mr. Lupo has held he and Mr. Lino apart at different times to keep them from fighting over the situation. He has worked hard at it but they didn't have the support from the city and that was why he was here. He asked what guarantee he would have to enforce this issue now with 150 less users. Commissioner Beaty thanked Mr. Eliante. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. Mr. Hess readdressed the commission and said that it seemed to him after listening to the testimony that the biggest parking problem has been in existence for years and was between Mr. Lupo's two building that were built too close together. He suggested that their uses were too high and they were allowing too many cars and employees without sufficient off street parking. He thought they would like his building to remain empty and for him to go away so that they could use his 300 + feet of parking, but that wasn't going to happen unless two years from now he still didn't have a tenant and then the bank would own it and someone else would get it. If Mr. Lupo felt there was a liability problem there, then maybe Mr. Hess should get a policy from Mr. Lupo to protect him. Mr. Hess stated that he believed that space between Mr. Lupo's east wall and Mr. Hess's west wall, which was actually the fire lane, if it was striped and signed he didn't think people would park there. If someone saw a parking area and didn't know whether they could park there or not and it said that vehicles parked there would be towed away by Roy's Towing at the violator's expense, people wouldn't park there; or at least he himself wouldn't. Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell noted that since the last meeting Mr. Muro has tried to satisfy everyone's needs on both sides of his building, and with the extra parking on the premises that increased the available onsite parking area to 90 spaces, in addition to the peak demand being in the early morning until 9:00 a.m. and from 5:30 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. in the evenings when most other businesses at least in the evening hours would be closed and since there was no competing development across the street from the existing building, she felt there would be ample parking available. She commented that it seemed that the other tenants didn't have adequate parking for the businesses they were running. She said that she was in favor of Mr. Muro's project. Commissioner Beaty said he agreed with Commissioner Campbell. He stated that he would like to accept Chairperson Ferguson's suggestions that the Fire Marshal mark the lanes and encourage enforcement of the fire lane violations and that would require some diligence on the commission's part and city staff's, but it %bW 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 n that insurance question raised was important at code was enforced. As far as the �nsu c que � by Mr. Lupo, he had to deal with that all the time and thought it cost an extra $10 dollars to have someone listed as an additional insured and with the stipulation that Mr. Lupo would be notified if that payment was not made. According to a letter from the Sports and Fitness Insurance Corporation it was $52 per year, so it might be $62 for him to receive that notification and didn't seem to be an issue. Commissioner Beaty said he would also be in favor of approval. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he was not at the meeting when this first came up, but the law allowed that if he listened to the tape of the meeting and reviewed the minutes, which he has done, he was able to participate in the decision making which he intended to do. Also, two members of the Planning Commission were absent tonight and the rules provided that a majority of the quorum could vote on an issue, which meant that two out of three votes would pass this issue tonight, or any other matter before the commission tonight. In reading the minutes from last week he noted Commissioner Jonathan's comments about how code requirements varied from staff's observation and he pointed out that he himself placed more weight on staff's observation. He noted that he sits on the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review Committee and many times they were throwing darts at a dart board guessing what would be most appropriate and when there were existing uses that could be observed like Mr. Muro's and a number of other health clubs, he tended to put more weight on those. He said that what he sensed what they had here was a situation where Mr. Muro's project ought to work and they had two adjacent property owners who were telling the commission that it didn't work because people weren't following the law and the City wasn't enforcing the law. Given that option, his choice was not to deprive a private property owner of his right, but to go out and force people to follow the law and give them the support which they just asked for from the city. There was an old saying to be careful what you ask for because you just might get it and with respect to enforcement of fire lane violations that was exactly what they would be getting. He didn't believe that these fire lanes were properly stenciled and there was a condition of approval that requires compliance with all Fire Marshal and fire authority regulations and they would get someone out there to take a look at it. They would receive the enforcement that they were seeking for violators parking in the fire lanes, but there was nothing about Mr. Muro's application that he could see that was irregular, with the exception of utilizing street parking and he didn't know where they came up with the idea that cars couldn't be parked in the street, particularly in a Service Industrial zone, and particularly when it was before and after hours of major intensity use for Mr. Muro when it wouldn't interfere with adjoining property owners. Waste Management had the entire block on the north side and there was a solid chain link fence along there and there would be no one else parking along there except for Mr. Muro and his two neighbors and Chairperson Ferguson said he was confident that they could get along. If they couldn't, the Planning Commission retained continuing jurisdiction to make sure that Mr. Muro , complies with the conditions of his approval. He also was in favor of the 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 application, he wanted to see the law enforced and for them to receive the support from the City that they wanted, and he didn't want to deprive Mr. Hess or Mr. Muro of their opportunity to operate what he felt would be a socially beneficial enterprise to the citizens of Palm Desert. He asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, and seconded by Commissioner Beaty (with an encouragement to Mr. Muro that he uphold his conditions of approval and encouraging the neighbors to try and get along), approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1820, approving CUP 97-10, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 3-0. B. Continued Case Nos. PP 97-8, VAR 97-1, DA 97-3 - O. MICHAEL HOMME, Applicant Request for approval of a Precise Plan of Design for a 12,500 square foot, single story professional office/medical building, Development Agreement permitting up to 2,000 square feet of limited general commercial uses and parking reduction, and Setback Variance for said building on the north side of Fred Waring Drive between Monterey Avenue and Acacia Drive. Mr. Drell noted that plans were on display. He explained that Mr. Homme was the lessee of this property and was attempting to come up with a formula of design, land use and economics to make it viable for him to develop this property. Staff believed that Mr. Homme succeeded in coming up with a very attractive, compatible architectural design and site plan. Mr. Drell noted that the proposal was for a distinctive single story building for this very important corner. He explained that commission was provided an economic analysis which gave some insight on Mr. Homme's request which included, in addition to the 12,500 square feet of building, 2,000 square feet of retail space of which potentially could all be a restaurant. Part of Mr. Homme's request dealt with hours of operation and Mr. Drell noted that a successful retail store would need something other than the minimum hours that an office use would require and would probably extend somewhat before and after a normal office use. Currently retail and restaurants were not permitted uses or conditional uses in the Office Professional zone. More significantly, potentially a 2,000 square foot restaurant would generate a 12-space parking deficiency on this property. Unlike the previous case, there was not an abundance of street parking available to handle any overflow if it were to occur without it spreading out into the residential area. Staff felt that was still a major concern. While there might be opportunities to address that, the most obvious way was to make the building smaller or not allow the commercial use. The property was adequately parked for a �"" 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 combination professional office/medical office building. Mr. Drell explained that staff was requesting a 30-day continuance, but indicated that Mr. Homme might wish to elaborate on the motivation for his application and his request. Since staff was not in a position to recommend approval, staff recommended a 30-day continuance. The public hearing was still open and Chairperson Ferguson asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MIKE HOMME, 46-300 Desert Lily in Palm Desert, stated that he was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Homme was opposed to a continuance. Mr. Homme replied no. He said that Mr. Drell has been very good in trying to solve the problems that this property has and he has been firm in his position and Mr. Homme hoped that given another 30 days, they could work out a few more things. He said that there were very good reasons for the application to be made in the format it was made with the commercial space. He also thought that there was a big concern about the 2,000 square feet being a restaurant and the only two points he wanted to make about that was that 2,000 square feet would be an awful small restaurant and that he would be more than happy to accept a condition which would limit the hours of use from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. in the evening. He noted that Palm Desert has an interesting Office Professional zone which precludes so many things from happening in an office complex, many of which were not really restaurant uses. They couldn't have a blue printer shop and many uses like that which would work well with office uses. He felt they really needed the retail commercial zone to accommodate those uses and a combination of things. It was making a very low density single story office building work with the increased rents that the commercial uses would bring and to make it a more attractive facility by having these things. The use was very small and he would be more than happy to limit the hours. It was not intended to be another Ruth's Chris like at the corner of Portola and Highway 1 1 1 with only 2,000 feet. He thought that he and Mr. Drell needed to continue talking. Mr. Drell noted that he might not have a Ruth's Chris, but he probably wouldn't mind having a Starbucks. Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Homme had any prospective tenants in mind. Mr. Homme said "not really". He noted that this property has been vacant for some time and there was a long term lease involved and unfortunately, whether good or bad, the only way to make it economic is for him, as the very primary lessee, to do something because anyone that came after he would not be able to make it work economically without a lot more density. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 ftw Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Drell if a blueprint shop would be required to provide for more parking than what Mr. Homme has now. Mr. Drell stated that straight retail uses were at the same parking requirement as office and for this particular building a medical office use was slightly higher. They would still have to deal with the use problem, but they wouldn't have a parking problem. Those sorts of uses were more likely to coincide with typical office hours. Practically speaking, and if Mr. Homme was willing to limit himself to specific hours and was willing to forgo a restaurant, that would simplify the problem significantly to a narrower range. He indicated that Mr. Homme was, making the same argument that he made when Mr. Muro's application was processed on this property where staff said that to make it viable given the cost of developing this property a higher intensity use and a higher rent payer would be needed. That was staff's conclusion then and Mr. Homme has shown that he has gone where no one has gone before when it comes to trying to make office buildings viable. Mr. Drell stated that Mr. Homme has built in times and in locations where others didn't think it made any sense and he has obviously shown that he can do it. When Mr. Homme says that it doesn't make sense economically, he wouldn't disagree with him. Mr. Drell noted that he was chastised at a council meeting for making the interpretation that Mr. Muro could even apply for a conditional use permit at this location, let alone receive approval and was directed to interpret the O.P. zone very strictly. Chairperson Ferguson clarified that Mr. Drell and Mr. Homme would continue to .., work on this and come back to the commission on September 2. Mr. Drell agreed. Mr. Homme mentioned that the City has a parking lot behind the apartment buildings that are on Monterey Avenue. When the City went to acquire that property, and he was the owner of those lots and he sold those lots to the City for parking which made it possible to clean up that apartment building at that time, that allowed a tremendous amount of parking behind that apartment building that was built from City Redevelopment. One of the biggest problems with that parking for the neighborhood was people coming out onto Acacia and Arboleda and wandering through the neighborhood to get to Monterey and Fred Waring. One of the things he and Mr. Drell were discussing was the fact that if the parking for this building was incorporated into the parking of that building, and he wasn't saying that to get more parking, but if people could be channeled down through that parking lot to the Arboleda entrance of the parking lot and there was a sign there that said no left turn, they would turn onto Monterey and not go through the neighborhood if they followed the law. If the entrance to the parking lot being proposed here was used and the existing entrance on Acacia that goes into the City-owned parking lot which wasn't really an entrance, but was supposed to be a fire exit was used, and if that entrance was moved farther to the south whereby when the traffic goes out that way, the lights wouldn't shine on the residential neighbor across the street and if there was a no right turn sign installed there, it would go a long way to probably 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 helping the traffic in that neighborhood, along with a four-way stop at the rr�i corner of Arboleda and Acacia. No matter what happened on his potential shortage of parking, he felt that was an issue he felt the City should consider for the overall area. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION of this project. MR. REX McDANIEL, 72-915 Glorianna in Palm Desert, directly west of the property under discussion, stated that he would like to see this property developed. He stated that the current proposal only gave him one cause for concern and that was the introduction of a commercial enterprise into an Office Professional zone. He understood that the Zoning Ordinance provided for a development agreement which could be used to accommodate projects which deserve some special consideration. He felt this project deserved some special consideration. As currently proposed the commercial enterprise would be limited to 2,000 square feet and its operating hours would be restricted to somewhere around 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. In addition to that, common sense would dictate that whatever the commercial activity turned out to be would have to be compatible with its office neighbors in the development. With those restrictions, he didn't feel that any commercial enterprise that could operate under those restrictions would be a threat to the residential community. With the accomplishment of a development agreement which specifies those limitations and provides for some monitoring of it, he would recommend approval of this project as proposed. Mr. Drell asked for clarification that Mr. McDaniel would not be opposed to a coffee shop in this project. Something like a Starbucks or a similar operation. Mr. McDaniel said he was not opposed to that type of operation. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the public hearing would remain open and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing PP 97-8, VAR 97-1 and DA 97-3 to September 2, 1997 by minute motion. Carried 3-0. C. Case No. TPM 28608 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, Applicant Request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 1 .81 acre parcel into two for property located on the south side of Highway 1 1 1, 500 feet east of Deep Canyon Road. f 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 �+ Mr. Alvarez reminded commission that in June of 1997 the commission approved CUP 97-6 which would allow a Del Taco restaurant to operate within the old Desert Sun building located at 74-617 Highway 1 1 1 . He explained that in order for Del Taco to purchase this property, the current property owner (Southern California Edison) had to subdivide this property into two parcels. Subdivision of the existing 1 .81 acre parcel into two would result in parcel one being 24,824 square feet (for the Del Taco restaurant) and parcel two, which would be a 54,000 square foot flag shaped lot for the continued use of Southern California Edison for their utility substation. Parcel two would gain access via a 35-foot drive approach along the eastern edge of the property". This would allow trucks and vehicles to continue to use this rear parcel. Both parcels exceed the minimum lot size requirements of 10,000 square feet and would comply with all City ordinance requirements. Mr. Alvarez noted that the project was a Class 15 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and recommended approval of the parcel map, subject to conditions. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DICK BAXLEY, 38-395 Nasturtium in Palm Desert, said that he was surprised that they were on the agenda tonight, however, he represented Southern California Edison and requested approval of the proposal. Commissioner Beaty asked why Mr. Baxley was surprised that he was on the agenda. Mr. Baxley stated that he had been gone and no one said anything. Commissioner Beaty asked if he was notified of the meeting. Mr. Baxley said they should have been here, but that was okay and didn't expect there was a major problem and felt that staff did a great job with the report. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to address the commission inn FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Ferguson asked for commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1821 , approving TPM 28608, subject to conditions. Carried 3-0. �..r 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 D. Case Nos. TPM 28630 and ADJ 97-8 - PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT .�r+ AGENCY, Applicant Request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 28,400 square foot parcel into two, each 13,068 square feet. Request includes an Adjustment of 932 square feet to permit (2) 13,068 square foot lots in the R-1 14,000 zone. Property is located on the southeast corner of De Anza Way and San Pascual Avenue. Mr. Alvarez explained that the property was currently vacant. He noted the property was 26,138 square feet in size and was currently zoned R-1 13,000. The current request was to subdivide the parcel into two 13,068 square foot parcels. The request was an identical one which was made in 1990 which was denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council due to some neighborhood opposition. He noted that parcel one would have frontage on both De Anza and San Pascual, while parcel two would only have frontage on De Anza. Because of the 14,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement, the applicant was seeking a 932 square foot adjustment on each lot. Mr. Alvarez explained that the Commission could grant an adjustment of up to 10 percent of the lot size if the findings for an adjustment could be affirmed. Staff felt that the findings could be affirmed. Mr. Alvarez stated that the adjustment was a relatively minor one and constituted a 6 percent reduction in lot size. Secondly, other similar corner lots in the same vicinity had been subdivided into lots of smaller size. Thirdly, the majority of lots to the east of this parcel in the similar R-1 14,000 zone averaged 12,000 square feet in size. He noted that one letter ..r of opposition was received and it was included in the Commission's packet. Staff felt that the findings for approval of the parcel map and the adjustment could be made and recommended approval, subject to the conditions. Chairperson Ferguson asked what, other than its size, was the particular difficulty and unnecessary physical hardship with this lot as opposed to any other lot of similar size in the same neighborhood. Mr. Alvarez said that similar lots of this size in the past have been subdivided and the difficulty was that would give preference to other people. Mr. Drell also indicated that it was staff's experience, particularly in this neighborhood given the moderate economic status, that property owners couldn't physically maintain properties this large. As a result the lots didn't get developed at all, houses didn't get built on them, or in some instances properties that have houses abandoned part of the lot in terms of landscaping because they couldn't afford economically to maintain them. Chairperson Ferguson stated that in reviewing Exhibit B, it appeared that most lots in the R-1 14,000 zone were about half that. He asked if our zoning was a joke and more violated the zoning than adhered to it. Mr. Drell said that when the City incorporated, there was an attempt to generally conform zoning to the existing subdivision pattern. Because whoever laid out the subdivision originally and in drawing those lines, there were some smaller lots that were included. He felt the point here was that the proposed lot sizes were closer to the zoning than the existing lot size, which was nearly twice the size. That is what made this 24 �.rf MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 lot unusually physically. Chairperson Ferguson asked if this lot was zoned R-1 14,000 at the time of acquisition by the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Drell replied yes. Chairperson Ferguson said that on the one had half the city saying they wanted 14,000 square feet and the other half saying they would like to split this parcel into two smaller lots. He said it seemed like we were talking out of both sides of our mouths. Mr. Drell said that there was a recommendation of approval by the City and the City staff recommended approval in 1990 based upon the fact that the lots that would be created were closer to being consistent to the 14,000 square foot zoning than the existing lot, which was nearly twice the size. Chairperson Ferguson asked if staff knew why this tot was acquired by the City. Mr. Drell deferred the question to the applicant, the Redevelopment Agency. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. TERRE LA ROCCA, of the Redevelopment Agency, informed commission that the property was acquired two years ago for the purpose of developing housing. They had been in discussions with Building Horizons, a project in conjunction with the Boys and Girls Club who approached the city with a proposal to construct two homes through their program. As a result, the city acquired this parcel with that intent in mind. Building Horizons built two homes and had two homes currently under `.. construction in La Quinta. Given their track record, they felt the proposal was a good one and they had attempted to actually pull the program together for the last academic year but were not successful in doing that because of various issues involved that had to be taken care of. They were hopeful that should this be approved by both the Planning Commission and Agency that they would be able to work with them for this next academic year in order for them to construct the two homes they are proposing. As part of their proposal they are asking the Agency to donate the site. There would be two homes built. This is a vocational program through the School District and students would be the construction team supervised by licensed contractors. The two homes would be built as energy efficient homes and Mr. Steve Jones from Building Horizons was present to describe the program and the types of structures that would be built on the parcels. The Housing Advisory Committee reviewed the proposal and recommended participation in the program and recommended participation in not only the construction of the program, but also in the assistance to the home buyer to make the house affordable. Commissioner Beaty asked if there was an existing staff member at Palm Desert High School who was capable of supervising this program since they haven't had an industrial arts or vocational program there. Ms. LaRocca deferred the question to the Mr. Jones. tow 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 r i MR. STEVE JONES, 72-830 Ambrosia in Palm Desert, stated that he was before the commission as a Board Member of Building Horizons Foundation, which was affiliated with the Boys and Girls Club of the Coachella Valley. They had been operating the Building Horizons program in La Quinta for the past three years and they have constructed two homes each year, for a total of six homes. They were affordable housing that was subsidized by the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency. These houses were generally sold before they were completed and the move in took place around the time of graduation. Students from area high schools have been participating in the La Quinta program for the past three years. Coachella, Indio, La Quinta and Palm Desert High Schools. They have held off coming to Palm Desert until this year because they wanted a larger turnout from Palm Desert High School and they were hoping for a Palm Desert high School program in Palm Desert. They tried unsuccessfully last year to recruit the appropriate number of students, but they were successful for this coming school year. They have approximately 20 students signed up for this coming semester and it is a program that takes place during the entire school year, from September through June. The program was accredited by the high schools and the school districts and the students came to them daily from 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. They were junior and senior high school students. He said this was essentially a motivating program that challenges these young people to learn about work, about goals that are larger than themselves to achieve things they might not otherwise, they give them a great sense of self confidence, self worth and self esteem that they can take with them. At the completion of the school year those students graduating from high school, they can do several things with them. They help them to secure a well paying job and they have many contractors in the desert area and Palm Desert area who are standing by waiting for these students to graduate and they have had successful hirings every year so far. They also send students to COD on scholarship and it has been a very successful program. It was a tough program and they have about a 50% attrition rate and they generally start out with about 40 students and have about 20-25 students by the end of the school year. The quality that the students build was remarkable. It was well above average and the homes were typically correct for their neighborhood and they find that there have been no complaints in the past by neighbors. To the contrary. They have found that the families that have moved into these homes were good families, hardworking families who just need help with affordable housing. This was the program they were bringing to Palm Desert and he hoped to have the Commission's support. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there was an instructor at Palm Desert High School. Mr. Jones answered that there was not a Palm Desert instructor. In this case they have an instructor from the JTPA program who would be conducting the onsite supervision of the students. They also had area 26 rii MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 contractors who volunteered their time for this program to come out and teach the students their particular aspect of instruction. Commissioner Beaty asked for clarification about the instructor. Mr. Jones stated that the JTPA was a program within the school system. Job Training Partnership was providing them with a certified instructor. He was a licensed contractor and a certified teacher. Chairperson Ferguson asked Ms. LaRocca why two homes. Ms. LaRocca said that was what she asked Mr. Jones and his answer was that they liked to have two homes going at the same time to keep students rotating and in order to do that they can't have two sites that were separate from one another, it was not efficient for them to run two projects on two parcels at two different locations. Hence their desire to have one parcel or two parcels side by side and when the opportunity came to purchase this parcel and they saw there was a possibility that it could be split, they felt it was an ideal situation to do some infill housing in that area and to meet the need of this particular program. Mr. Jones explained that they have found in their experience that they can use the first house as an instructional tool where the tradesmen will come out and work with the kids to build that particular aspect of the house. Then the kids can go to the second house and do it again to reinforce what they have learned. They have found that has been very successful with this performance-based training. They can teach them on the first one and reinforce it on the second one. It also worked much better economically for them. One instructor on one house was almost prohibitively costly for the program. Chairperson Ferguson asked if these houses when they are sold satisfy the City's low and moderate income housing element requirements. Ms. LaRocca said they would. Chairperson Ferguson asked what income level they would be satisfying. Ms. LaRocca said they would be looking at families within the lower income up to 80% of the County median income. That was at the higher low end. Chairperson Ferguson asked what the income requirements were for the higher low end. Ms. LaRocca replied approximately a family of four would be between $18,000 and $20,000 per year. �" 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson noted that this came before the City back in 1990 as almost an identical proposal and was turned down by both the Planning Commission and City Council. RDA bought it about two years ago and must have been aware of that fact. Ms. LaRocca concurred. Chairperson Ferguson asked if, as a practical matter and this had nothing to do with the merits of the program, but he was wondering if they had checked with the residents to see if they were supportive of this type of program and had any opposition prior to making their application. Ms. LaRocca said that in their early discussions they discussed the issue that there might be some opposition in the neighborhood and didn't know if that had been addressed and asked Mr. Jones if he knew. Mr. Jones felt that the end product of the students' work was a well built, well-designed house and it would be a credit to the neighborhood. How it was built or how it got there would be a moot point after the fact. Chairperson Ferguson said that based on the comments the commission received, it was the splitting of the lot that was the issue, not the qua!ity of the construction. Ms. LaRocca stated that if there was a possibility of splitting the lot in a different fashion that would be satisfactory to the neighborhood, they would consider that, although she was not sure that was doable. Commissioner Campbell asked what the size of the homes would be. Mr. Jones informed commission that the homes would be approximately 1450 square feet of living space plus a two-car garage and covered porch area. Commissioner Campbell asked what sizes the homes were in the surrounding area. Mr. Jones said he wasn't sure, but they looked to be of similar size. Chairperson Ferguson asked if this matter was to be continued to August 19 to allow them to meet with the neighbors and address the letters of opposition, if that would impact their program and planning. Ms. LaRocca explained that they were trying to get the program going during this coming academic year and she believed that might be a problem. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 Mr. Jones said they were having to plan for the August 28 City Council meeting and they have to move forward very quickly at this point with some assurance that they will at least get that far. If they are stalled at Planning Commission, they would probably stall the program this year. Mr. Drell said that this application, regardless of the Planning Commission's recommendation, will be going to the August 28 City Council meeting. Chairperson Ferguson asked on what grounds. Mr. Drell said that he was informed that if it were approved, it was going to be immediately called up for review by the council and if it was denied, the applicant would be requesting that review. Chairperson Ferguson said he was trying to avoid that and had heard from some of the residents in the area and he had some concerns as well. They required everyone else that comes before the Planning Commission to try and work things out with their neighbors and he didn't doubt that things could be worked out, but didn't see that the effort had been made. Commissioner Campbell asked if all the neighbors were notified. Ms. LaRocca said she presumed that they were and for the record she was not aware of what the opposition was from the neighbors. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR. There was no one. He asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MR. TERRY REED, 73-691 De Anza Way on the southwest corner of De Anza and San Pascual, stated that he has nothing against the school or the students getting the education. Being a builder and designer himself, he had some questions and concerns about this property. They have 15,000 square feet with a home that is 2600 square feet. The house adjacent to this new lot is 2800 square feet and the one across the street if over 3,000 square feet. Putting smaller homes on these lots would bring their values down. It may improve them. The crime rate had also increased in their area. He has been burglarized six times in eight years. His neighbors have been burglarized four times in two years. One gentleman here this evening was burglarized the other day and had his front door stolen off his new home. He was not saying that these would be the types of people they would be bringing into the area; however, he was concerned. MR. RUSSELL ADAMS, 44-781 San Pascual, asked how many families would be in one house and if the annual salary of these people would be $20,000. They have had a lot of problems with burglaries in that neighborhood and a 962 square foot house was not very large house and on that corner lot, putting two houses on it would cause a lot of problems with traffic. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson clarified that the homes would be about 1450 square feet. Mr. Drell concurred. He stated that this application has nothing to do with the size of the house. The issue is the size of the lot. Mr. Adams indicated that it only said the size of the lot would be 13,068 square feet and said nothing about the size of the house. Mr. Drell said the application was for a parcel map to divide the lot into two 13,068 square foot lots. Mr. Adams said that he was more interested in the size of the families that go into these homes because this is low cost housing and they have some very nice homes around there. He was strictly against it. MR. FRED KAUFMAN, 44-780 San Pascual, noted that his house burnt down over Christmas and he was building a new house and was putting a lot of extra money into it. He didn't want to see his house devaluating. He lost his front doors and didn't know what kind of neighborhood they were in. All he wanted were his doors back but guessed that he wouldn't get them. He was concerned that if there was low income housing there he wouldn't get the value for his home. Ms. LaRocca said that the income levels would vary depending on the number of members in the household. If it was a three-bedroom home, conceivably they could have six individuals living in that house. That would be a mother, father and four children. The number of bedrooms dictates the number of people that could live in the house. Based on that there would not be more than one family living in either house and that would be a condition of their regulatory agreement that would be recorded as part of the sale of the property. With respect to income, that varied depending on the number of members in that household. Their intent was to stay within the moderate income range which is 50-80% of the County median income. The median income would be $43,400 now for a family of four. With regard to sales price on the house, the sale price would be estimated at $105,000. Her understanding was that the comps. in the area were generally between $1 10,000 and $1 12,000 so the resale selling price of the house would in fact be comparable to other homes in the area. The only thing that would make it affordable would be that the Agency would be participating in subsidy of mortgage buy down for the family but the value of the home would be there as a result of the construction, design and size of the home. Chairperson Ferguson asked what the moderate income housing element requirement need was at present and if we have met it, exceeded it or were under. 30 r„� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 .... Ms. LaRocca said that the housing element was so outdated at this point that it was really hard figure and referred the question to Mr. Drell. Mr. Drell said there was a housing element requirement, but more important was the settlement agreement requirement and while the housing element requirement required us when shooting at a target to hit the wall with a dart, while the settlement agreement was more precise. He asked Ms. LaRocca what the total number of units were now. Ms. LaRocca replied about 1 ,100. Mr. Drell said that depending upon how they looked at our stipulation, we have a requirement of about 1300, so they were about 200 short. Ms. LaRocca stated that the stipulation required that we provide affordable housing and it was recently amended and would require the city to provide in lieu of moderate, because moderate was in fact market rate, more very low and low housing in order to meet that stipulation requirement. Mr. Drell pointed out that this was not something that was being done for the first time. Although they had different people building the house, they built 13 houses in the Palma Village area. Curiously they ran into the same comments. The council chamber was full of area neighbors objecting to both the quality of �.. houses and the quality of the residents. After seven or eight years those houses probably stood out as the nicest houses in that neighborhood and he didn't know of any problem they have ever encountered with the residents. Ms. LaRocca said that the individuals occupying these homes would be of the same mix that Desert Rose has and a majority of the home buyers at Desert Rose were in the low income bracket and they have a great neighborhood going there. Commissioner Beaty asked Ms. LaRocca to describe the screening process for the prospective applicant. Ms. LaRocca referred the question to Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones stated that the homes were for sale and they make that public knowledge and advertise. They look for buyers who meet the requirements of the Redevelopment Agency for affordable housing and using the past year in La Quinta as an example, the two homes they built in La Quinta which were completed in early June for graduation, were sold before Christmas, were in escrow in February and one home was sold to a single mother with two kids, a teacher, and the other home was also sold to a single mother with three kids, a secretary. This is the type of people who are buying these kinds of houses. They are hard working, good people with families. They were simply taking advantage of an affordable housing i.. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 opportunity. It wasn't low cost housing. These houses were being sold at ...r market rate and the Redevelopment Agency was subsidizing that down to an affordable level for these families. It wasn't low cost housing. It was high quality housing, just affordable housing. Ms. LaRocca stated that the families that are selected would have to be credit worthy because they would have to get their first mortgage from a conventional lender so to the extent that they are debt ridden or bad risks that wouldn't happen. They had to be credit worthy. Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he has no problems with Desert Horizons and felt what they were doing was meritorious and supported it 100%. He had no problem with the city meeting its low and moderate income housing element, but he did have a problem with subdividing this lot. It is R-1 14,000 and he probably held the Redevelopment Agency to a higher standard than most developers because it does have the inherent authority and power not enjoyed by other developers. He would expect that the Redevelopment Agency should have and could have met with the neighbors and gone through this program and it was apparent to him that they didn't. He was willing to do one of two things depending on the comments of his fellow commissioners which is to either deny the application or continue it to the 19th, giving them an opportunity to work with the neighbors to work something out. He would like to see something worked out, but by the same stretch he saw that property owners that live in that area have an anticipation in their property rights, the Redevelopment Agency certainly knew when it bought this parcel its history and could have checked with Planning to see if they could subdivide it and what the feasibility of that was and didn't, and there was certainly no shortage of houses that meet the 14,000 square foot requirement that the Redevelopment Agency could buy and had they done so, he suspected they wouldn't be having this conversation. Commissioner Campbell said that if Chairperson Ferguson wished to continue this matter to August 19, either way it would go in front of the Council on August 28. They could continue it to the 19th and see if the Redevelopment Agency was able to go ahead and meet with the residents there, but either way it would still go to the Council on the 28th. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell replied not necessarily. It could. Staff would have to advertise it for the 28th with the complete assurance that a decision would be made on the 19th and therefore that recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council on the 28th. Typically we don't like to advertise hearings to the Council before the decision is made before the Planning Commission. It can be done if there are sufficient time constraints on a project to warrant it. He said they have had simultaneous Planning Commission and City Council hearings on projects when there were severe time constraints, so it was not unprecedented. 0 32 .,% MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 Commissioner Beaty said he would very much like to see this program succeed at Palm Desert High School. It was one thing that Palm Desert High School has never had. They just haven't had a vocational education program and that was not the intent when it was opened. It was supposed to be a magnet school and Indio High School was going to handle those types of programs, but that really hadn't worked. He thought there was a real need for students at Palm Desert High School to have this experience and he would like to see it succeed. He was a little concerned and in agreement with Commissioner Ferguson as to why the residents weren't consulted. He was not an expert on the impact of a 1400 square foot home on the value of 2800 square foot home or a 2000 square foot home, but he would be in favor of a continuance and hoped that something could be worked out or that perhaps there was another location, although at this late date that might be impractical. Also, he was curious to know why if the City has owned the property for two years why they were coming before the Planning Commission in August. He asked if this couldn't have been done with a little more planning so they weren't faced with this time deadline that makes it difficult for everyone. Chairperson Ferguson reopened and continued the public hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Beaty stated that he would move for a continuance with the encouragement of at least some discussions with the residents. Chairperson Ferguson agreed that they should meet with at least the residents present tonight and they could get copies of the letters of objection. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing TPM 28630 and ADJ 97-8 to August 19, 1997 by minute motion. Carried 3-0. E. Case Nos. GPA 97-5 and C/Z 97-10 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment from medium density residential to office professional and Change of Zone from R-1 13,000 to office professional (O.P.) for four properties located on the west side of Deep Canyon Road, starting 217 feet north of Alessandro Drive. Mr. Alvarez stated that the request was for a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone which would include four parcels on the west side of Deep Canyon starting with the second parcel north of Alessandro. As a result of the recently rezoned Office Professional parcel directly south and the commercial development of the Lucky's shopping center to the east, the single family residents along Deep Canyon have been impacted. The property owners have requested that their properties' general plan designation be changed from �`' 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 j Medium Density Residential to Office Professional and their zoning changed from R-1 13,000 to Office Professional. Being an area of transition, staff felt that the proposed land use changes would be consistent with the long term land use in this area. For purposes of CEQA this project was a Class 3 categorical exemption and staff recommended that commission recommend approval to the City Council for both the general plan amendment and zone change. Chairperson Ferguson asked why the line wasn't drawn right where it was consistent with the Lucky's perimeter; why did they go one additional lot beyond that. Mr. Drell replied that there was one property owner who has the top two parcels and he could envision over time property owners requesting the zone to go all the way down Deep Canyon. Chairperson Ferguson said that when the Lohman property was before Council, the question was asked where the line would be drawn and why was it being drawn where it is and he was asking the same questions. Mr. Drell stated it was being drawn based on the proximity to Lucky's and that lot was still cater corner to the Lucky's center and looked out on the Lucky's building. He said they could conceivably have gone down to the Grove. He indicated that the property on the northwest corner of Ramona thought he might want to do this also, but had second thoughts. Once it is redesignated as O.P., then they have lost the option to build a house there. He could see over time that they might end up to the Grove, but this request was based on the desires of the property owners and wasn't unreasonable. Commissioner Campbell asked if the fourth lot was empty. Mr. Drell agreed and said it was owned by the property owner of the third lot. They were part of the request and he requested it for both properties. It was cater corner to Lucky's and was marginally impacted by it. Chairperson Ferguson asked about the large parcel was at the northwest corner of Deep Canyon and Ramona. Mr. Drell clarified that the large lot was actually divided into three or four parcels. There were some homes, but the corner was vacant. In speaking to the owner of the corner parcel, he first thought that he would like to get in on this also, but decided not to because he wouldn't be able to build a home there and he might want to wait and see what the potential was in the future and if in fact there was a growing demand for office professional. But there would probably not be a demand at this corner and they would like to get those lots developed closer to Highway 1 1 1 and Lucky's before considering moving any further down the street. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. RALPH SLAUTO, 44-279 Corfu Court in Hidden Palms, stated that he couldn't make an opinion because he was confused. If the rezoning was going to take place, why didn't it take place. Why wasn't it brought up to rezone the properties on both sides of the places they want to rezone. The only question that came to his mind was that probably those property 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 owners didn't want it. If the City of Palm Desert wants to rezone this, it must be because someone wants it rezoned--probably the property owner of those particular lots have a deal with someone. But he didn't see the point of taking an element of Deep Canyon, allowing one lot to remain in the R-1 and two other lots on the other sides to remain R-1 and the other four lots are office professional. He felt there was a hodge podge of different kinds of buildings that would take away from the entire looks of the neighborhood. He wasn't against it, but he also wasn't for it, but didn't see the sense in having a mixed zoning area on that side of the street. It didn't bother him because he was on the other side, but it didn't seem to be an effective way to handle the zoning of a neighborhood like theirs. His opinion was to either do it all or don't do it. Mr. Drell clarified that the first lot was already zoned O.P. The first lot down from the corner was zoned O.P., so it wasn't a mix. It would be consistently zoned O.P. or commercial from Highway 1 1 1 to where they stop. There would be a line somewhere and to prevent the hodge podge. It would be consistent from one spot to another. One of the possible problems if they zoned all the way down to the Grove was that they could have an office building next to the Grove and then some houses. He thought they had done it as rationally as one could do it. It would promote that incremental development beginning at Highway 1 1 1 down as opposed to the hodge podge. Commissioner Beaty said he wasn't sure that the gentleman understood what Mr. Drell was saying and asked Mr. Alvarez to show the lots in question on the map. Mr. Slauto asked if those lots on the corner were already zoned office professional. Mr. Drell concurred. The corner at Highway 1 1 1 was zoned commercial and the northwest corner of Deep Canyon and Alessandro was zoned Office Professional. Mr. Slauto said that now he was beginning to understand. The City was planning to take those all the way from Highway 1 1 1 to Fred Waring. Mr. Drell said that at this point we weren't. Mr. Drell said that in the future it was conceivable that that might happen, but our goal now was to extend it consistently in as uniform as the city can and they can do that by limiting the extent as we move north, assuming that Deep Canyon develops and it seemed that there was a demand for this type of use, but that was why it was being done in a limited fashion now, starting from one end and moving to the other. He thought that was logical. Mr. Slauto stated that his understanding from the words Mr. Drell just said that the potential was that the west side of Deep Canyon would be Office 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 Professional sometime in the future, all the way from Highway 1 1 1 to Fred Waring. Mr. Drell clarified that he meant to the Grove. Chairperson Ferguson asked that Mr. Slauto address the commission and not staff. The commission members were the ones making the decision and suggested that they get to the commission deliberations and hopefully they would have a better understanding of what it is we're doing. He said it was not his intent to have Office Professional all the way to the Grove, or to Fred Waring. MR. GARY LOHMAN, 44-835 Deep Canyon Drive, the co-owner of the corner parcel in question. He said they were recently rezoned to Office Professional. He was in favor of the request and felt this was the right thing for the city to do. He said they hoped to attract a single developer to come in with a precise plan for all the properties. That would be the ideal condition. He said there was a natural line at the back of Lucky's that said "this is the end of commercial". Regarding earlier an earlier question about why this last lot was included and Mr. Lohman explained that there is a triangular piece at Hidden Palms that sort of angles over and looks like it is annexed to that lot as well. At this point in time he felt that were a good number of lots to rezone and it would give them critical mass that a developer might be interested in. Commissioner Beaty noted that Mr. Lohman said there was an obvious line at the north end of the Lucky's development that designates the end of commercial. Mr. Lohman agreed. Commissioner Beaty clarified that they were not talking about commercial. Mr. Lohman concurred. He felt that in general people either viewed uses as commercial or residential from the general public. He didn't know if people really identified Office Professional as a different use. To them it was residential or just broadly called commercial. He understood that the application tonight was for Office Professional. MS. LEE FISHER, 44-775 Deep Canyon, stated that she was the second house from Mr. Lohman's. She said that since Lucky's has been built they have considered the rezoning. They met with the neighbors and decided to try and get the rezoning as a whole package instead of one at a time. She felt it was the best thing for all of them and hoped the commission would approve the request. MR. BRUCE PETTINGELL, 44-805 Deep Canyon, the lot next to Mr. Lohman's, stated that he was here to request that the commission approval the zone change and general plan amendment. 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that since most of the neighbors were in favor of the change of zone, she would be in favor of the change of zone. Commissioner Beaty said it was interesting that at the last commission meeting during discussion on the Lowe proposal it was pointed out that there was a 22% occupancy rate in Office Professional and only an 8% occupancy rate in retail, yet they had already approved one lot for office use and now were considering more. He said they would let the market decide whether that was a smart move or not. He was in favor of the change. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he was also in favor, but want to draw a bright boundary line. Mr. Lohman mirrored his thinking. He felt the back end of the Lucky's center did delineate about as north as he would ever want to go with commercial along Deep Canyon. The Office Professional use has historically acted as a buffer between commercial and residential and he could see the three in question to serve as a visual buffer, but wasn't sure if he was building a home that he would want to look at the side of a Lucky's grocery store. Maybe to a larger extent inclusion of the fourth lot because of the line of sight. He stated that he would hate to see the city go any further north than that with office professional. There was an office professional corridor on Fred Waring and there �.. was a higher vacancy rate and they were not creating offices here, they were allowing the property owners to do so if they feel the market would sustain it. He stated that he would support it as a buffer, but no farther north. He clarified that that was the point he was alluding to earlier. He didn't want to see this go any farther north than the back end of the Lucky's center. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1822, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 97-5 and C/Z 97-10. Carried 3-0. CHAIRPERSON FERGUSON CALLED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 9:18 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:23 P.M. %1W 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case Nos. GPA 97-3, C/Z 97-9, PP 97-9 - LOWE ENTERPRISES COMMERCIAL GROUP, INC., Applicant Per Planning Commission direction on July 15, 1997, presentation of a resolution recommending to City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment from Office Professional to District Commercial, a Change of Zone from Office Professional (O.P.) to District Commercial (PC2), Precise Plan of Design for a 125,000 square foot retail commercial center, amendment to the existing development agreement and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto for an 11 .95 acre site at the southwest corner of El Paseo and Highway 111 . Mr. Drell stated that despite staff's reservations, staff was directed to prepare a resolution of approval. Staff did so. Mr. Drell felt they had a satisfactory document as it relates to the general plan, change of zone and precise plan, but they didn't have a satisfactory development agreement. He said they also received a submittal today from the developer relative to more discussion of that development agreement and there needed to be a clean document for this particular project apart from the very generalized document that exists today. Relative to the design, staff produced conditions of approval for the precise plan. At that time staff pointed out some deviations from standards in the PC-2 zone relative to the setbacks. He also pointed out that all the approvals were for a 125,000 square foot while the actual plan before the commission was for 121 ,771 square feet. The applicant was requesting the ability to expand to 125,000 square feet and have the ability to do that as long as all of the ordinance standards are met in terms of parking, setbacks, etc. Condition No. 6 regarding setbacks, the applicant had requested exceptions to setback requirements for all Shop Building A, Pads 1 , 2 and the Highway 1 1 1 restaurant pad. Pad 2 and the Highway 1 1 1 restaurant pad were shown at 20 feet versus a code requirement of 25 feet. The Highway 1 1 1 property line setback for Pad 2 was shown at 28 feet and that was required to be 32 feet. The restaurant pad was shown at 25 feet and should be 32 feet. Mr. Drell stated that the Shop Building located on the back side backing onto Painters Path, typically there would be a 25 foot setback and a 12-foot parkway for a total setback of 37 feet. In this particular case there was a total setback from curbline including a wide parkway of over 42 feet, so in that they were in excess visually of the landscape setback. Staff felt this was warranted. Typically this property would be part of the project and he was talking about location of property line, so functionally the city was getting the setback we want. On the corner pads at El Paseo, Painters Path and Highway 1 1 1 , the direction from the council has been to open up corners visually, therefore, it would be somewhat contradictory to allow smaller setbacks for buildings than code requires. In going around and examining similar situations at similar centers throughout the city, typically setbacks for corner parcels were 36 feet or 40 feet or more. Because of the street widening there 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 was almost no parkway, so there weren't mitigating factors, therefore, staff was not recommending any exceptions for the Highway 1 1 1 or El Paseo buildings. Mr. Drell felt there was sufficient flexibility in the site plan to achieve required setbacks. He noted that Sunline was requesting that a trolley stop be developed within the project for the Shopper Hopper. This project would be a stop for it. The other issue was regarding height. He stated that there was a height limit of 30 feet in the PC zone. The potential bookstore building was shown at 37 feet and there were some tower elements shown at 55 feet. He indicated that typically building heights in generally have been meeting the code requirement of 30 feet or 35 feet in Regional Commercial. Tower heights have been closer to 40 feet or 44 feet. He didn't think any towers had been approved higher than 44 feet. He stated that this would be before City Council and the Commission could make a recommendation if it wanted. Regarding CEQA review, he asked if the Traffic Engineer had received the final comments from the traffic engineer. Mr. Greenwood replied no. Mr. Drell believed that based on staff's own analysis, and he thought they were fairly fine points, that the city's goal of achieving a level of service C at the Highway 1 1 1/El Paseo intersection would be maintained with required mitigation. They were discussing some mitigations which Mr. Drell listed that hadn't yet been confirmed. Those mitigations included creating a right-turn lane on Highway 1 1 1 to El Paseo and then a dual left-turn lane both eastbound and westbound either going to Painters Path or Town Center Way. The goal in the analysis was that without dual left-turn lanes, the level of service for those turning movements would degrade as a result of the project. Staff was confident that the mitigation measures would be adequate. There was also a noise study and staff included all of the noise study mitigation measures as conditions of approval. The most significant one was the creation of a ten-foot combination berm and wall all along the back at Painters Path. The barrier would be as measured from the noise source, 12 or 13 feet. They were also restricting deliveries by large trucks going around the south side of the building; all would be required to use Highway 1 1 1 and loading would be from the north side of the buildings. He said there were also general restrictions in the noise study on locations of mechanical equipment and based on conclusions of the noise study, the project would not result in a net degradation of the noise environment and to a certain extent would mitigate some noise from Highway 1 1 1 . Based on that, staff was prepared to recommend that Planning Commission recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone and Precise Plan to City Council, but that the Development Agreement be continued until they receive a clean copy of the agreement back from the City Attorney. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he reviewed the minutes and listened to the tape and his understanding was that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Change of Zone, but there were no resolutions of approval prepared, so this was a Miscellaneous item because staff was instructed to do what was said at the last meeting. That was what was before the Commission. The Precise Plan was the same issue, except there was no final comment from the Traffic Engineer, there was no Development low 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 I Agreement specific to this parcel as amended, and there was no resolution reflecting the 13 conditions raised by Lowe today which he was given to understand were not made aware of until last Friday. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Ferguson stated that his question was that he would very much like to see this item go to City Council on August 28. He would also like to get final comment from the Traffic Engineer and see Mr. Erwin's slimmed down Development Agreement for this parcel and consider it on August 19 because he felt it was the Commission's responsibility to give the Council specific recommendations. He didn't feel the Commission had enough information to do that at this point, much less giving Lowe the opportunity to sit down and go through these 13 or so issues with staff and get a staff report on the 19th reflecting which issues staff said no to or yes to and why. He asked if there was a way to do that. Mr. Drell stated that staff could schedule the public hearing with the assurance that on the 19th Planning Commission would make a recommendation and that recommendation would go to the City Council on the 28th. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the Commission could have a final report by the 19th. Mr. Greenwood stated that he was waiting for the developer's engineer to provide the information. Staff was prepared to evaluate it, but was waiting for the submittal. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he would direct that question to the developer. Chairperson Ferguson asked the City Attorney if the Commission could have a Development Agreement for the 19th to review. Ms. Dryer replied yes. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he would like to see this matter before the Council on the 28th and wanted to review the Development Agreement. He didn't want to hold up progress when it was unnecessary, but it seemed difficult to get development agreements in a timely manner for review. Mr. Drell stated that staff would do as the Commission instructs. He also noted an additional condition to the Precise Plan and it was something that staff had been directed to include on all major projects and that was that parking facilities for golf carts, bicycles, mopeds, alternative transportation vehicles on the final plan would be included. Commissioner Beaty noted that Chairperson Ferguson asked for a Development Agreement to review on the 19th, but felt that the commission needed to receive it for review before the meeting. Mr. Drell stated that the Commission would receive the agreement with their normal agenda packet before the meeting. Commissioner Beaty noted that this was the first time he had seen the document from Lowe and it was dated today. Mr. Drell stated that that was why staff was not recommending approval of the development agreement tonight. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the preexisting development covered all of Ahmanson's properties and it would be much easier to review a development agreement that related specifically to this parcel. Also, he understood from the minutes and staff report from the last meeting that staff had not completed an analysis of the project because staff was recommending denial and the developer for the first time saw many of the conditions on Friday, worked on this over the weekend and yesterday, and put together information for the commission today. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Ferguson felt it needed more time. He asked 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 '�'■' the applicant if they would give the city the necessary information to complete the traffic analysis. MR. DAVID SMITH stated that the traffic study was being finalized right now. As of last Thursday afternoon their traffic engineer and the City's traffic engineers were still haggling over final issues. He believed it was done. Chairperson Ferguson asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing GPA 97-3, C/Z 97-9, PP 97-9, amendment to the development agreement, and certification of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to August 19, 1997 by minute motion. B. DISCUSSION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CASE NO. CUP 91-8 - SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CHURCH. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there was a staff report on this item. Mr. Drell replied no. What the commission received a letter of complaint from a neighbor and staff has not independently confirmed any of these concerns. Mr. Richards �ftw listed conditions that were on the conditional use permit and related some personal experience with the church's compliance. Mr. Drell noted that the goal was to attempt to take a bunch of activities that used to go on outdoors in this area in terms of athletic events and musical events and put them in this building with the hope that that would mitigate many of the noise problems that these events generated. He was also curious to know how the parking situation was working out since that was another important subject of the hearing and whether the situation would be ameliorated by what the city did. He felt that basically the complaint dealt with the activities, not about the parking. The indication was that some of the specific conditions relative to night time activities and supervision of those activities and making sure that they cease at 9:30 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. didn't seem to be rigidly being adhered to. He said that Mr. Richards was present as well as a representative of the church. He clarified that the commission was being asked whether or not the commission felt that the information being brought to them was significant enough to warrant initiation of the process similar to the process for Ruth's Chris, which was noticing of a hearing, staff doing a rigorous analysis and short of that, he would ask that staff, the neighbors and the church be given an opportunity to resolve these issues. If there were any misunderstandings on how the conditions were to be interpreted, they would try and resolve those as well. He felt the comments were very self-evident. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the church was provided with a copy of the letter. The church's representative was in the audience said yes. He received it �.. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 yesterday. Mr. Drell stated that the church received it with a copy of the agenda of the meeting. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the church hadn't had an opportunity to meaningfully respond in writing to the letter. Mr. Drell agreed. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was a recommendation on Mr. Drell's part that staff be allowed to work with the parties. Mr. Drell concurred and suggested setting a hearing with the understanding that if it wasn't resolved, staff should report back on the 19th and if there wasn't some satisfactory resolution, then the commission would set the hearing. Commissioner Beaty noted that there were several references as to contacts with Steve Smith. He asked if Mr. Drell had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Smith and verify the information. Mr. Drell said no and indicated that Mr. Smith was on vacation. Commissioner Beaty felt that the commission needed to hear from Mr. Smith to get his comments on the allegations. Mr. Drell noted that Mr. Smith would be back before the 19th. Commissioner Beaty noted that there were several apparent violations and he didn't like the language that he was seeing here that the church was indignant at having been caught in their dishonesty regarding the location of some things and wanted to know if that was what Mr. Smith really said. Mr. Drell stated that he wasn't sure Mr. Smith said that and Commissioner Beaty said that was why he wanted to hear from Mr. Smith. Chairperson Ferguson concurred. Commissioner Campbell suggested that the church get together with the neighbors and report back in two weeks. If they hadn't reached any conclusion, then the hearing would be scheduled. Chairperson Ferguson said he would like for the church to have an opportunity to respond because he met with their Administrator and Youth Director and he remembered the hearing. There were comments about people driving in their grass parking lot and one of the comments from the church was that once the church was closed, people would spin wheelies in the parking lot and short of putting up a chain, they had no control over it. He could see reasonable explanations for a lot of the issues brought up on the letter, but rather than guess he would like the church to have an opportunity to respond either in writing or to staff and meet with the neighbors who were asked to do exactly this. If things didn't appear to work out, they were supposed to let the Commission know, but before it was scheduled for a public hearing, he would like to receive input from the church, staff and if there were problems, there would be a public hearing. Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Richards had anything new to add. MR. JERRY WYLIE, 40-900 Avenida Estrada asked to address the commission. He stated that the backyard of his residence faced the church and they had been residents there since November. They loved Palm Desert and their Hovley Collection home. He was down here a couple of months ago and David Moore was at the meeting at which time they were asking for approval of the conditional use permit with all the inclusions that Mr. Drell submitted. David Moore was not at the meeting tonight. Mr. Wylie 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 bow stated that Mr. Moore made a lot of commitments to him a couple of months ago and he has not lived up to those commitments. Mr. Wylie read from an old staff report that said that the church came to the conclusion some time ago that they have out grown this facility and received approval from the County to develop a large church complex at the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Washington Street. They intended breaking ground on this new facility by July of 1997 with completion of Phase 1 in Spring of 1998. Mr. Wylie stated that they haven't broken ground yet. He didn't know where they were at on the funding, loan, plans, etc. When this was presented to the City Council, it was all contingent upon them breaking ground and it was all spelled out in the agreement. In his opinion, Mr. Moore has violated numbers 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10. The position Mr. Wylie was taking, along with a lot of his neighbors, were that if they violate the conditions of the agreement, that the agreement became null and void. If the agreement becomes null and void, then they must tear down the building that is existing because the existing tin building is supposed to be torn down if he doesn't have a plan, loan approval and other issues. He didn't know where they were at, although he knew that Mr. Drell had a meeting with David Moore but didn't know the outcome of the meeting. He wanted to have an update from Mr. Drell. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the church just received the comments yesterday and felt that fairness dictated that they be given an opportunity to respond. He also wanted to hear from staff. He suggested that they all get together and if they weren't in compliance with the conditions, then there was a revocation process. They didn't have to tear down their building until it was determined that they out of compliance and the commission determines they are. Mr. Wylie said he wanted to come here tonight to address the issue and find out where they were at, what they were going to do, how they would get together to resolve it because a lot of things had taken place within the last two or three months that were not agreed upon by Mr. Moore. Chairperson Ferguson said that speaking for himself, it was not his desire to make the gentleman from Southwest respond point by point to the letter tonight. He wanted to give them an opportunity to do that in writing and to meet with Mr. Drell and Mr. Wylie and the results of the meeting could come back to the commission if there is a problem there would be a public hearing. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the church's applicant nodded in agreement. Mr. Wylie felt that was fair. MR. JIM RICHARDS, 40-840 Avenida Estrada, thanked commission for reading his letter and considering it. He said he did not attend the last hearing, but his wife was present and she submitted testimony. He stated that fundamentally he agreed with what Chairperson Ferguson was saying about them getting together with the church and he appreciated staff's help *AW 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 in listening to questions and fielding this correspondence. Fundamentally though he wanted the commission to talk to Mr. Smith and he was sorry he was away. Mr. Richards stated that he was paraphrasing what Mr. Smith said directly to Mr. Richards about these specific incidences. He was sure that Mr. Smith would confirm that. That aside, Mr. Richards said that what they have been experiencing fundamentally was a lack of enforcement of the conditions. He knew that was a very difficult thing to do since all through the meeting they have heard about enforcement and blocking of fire lanes. He felt very strongly that if young people were invited to Southwest Community Church on a given evening, the church was responsible for their behavior, period. Including when they leave, if they drive around the grass fields, if they have been drinking and he wasn't saying they were, but those things affected the neighborhood as an environmental impact. Fundamentally, he thought one of the purposes of the temporary building was to alleviate noise that had previously been a problem because of outside activities. He assured commission that a $10,000 sound system in a tin building, it didn't matter if the event was indoors or out. His glass windows in the back and the sliders were bouncing with the beat. That was all they got when the band was practicing, and that was when the building was closed up tight. The other issue that hadn't been addressed by the Planning Commission or church was that they could say they weren't going to have an outside activity, but the people have to come and go. They still had to arrive in their cars, get out of their cars in the parking lot and go into the building and if the building was closed up at 10:00 p.m., they often didn't leave until midnight. That was one of the conditions and was one of the problems they were experiencing right now. Subsequent to the letter he submitted, there was a rehearsal last week at the church and he talked to Mr. Rick Baylor, the Youth Minister about it, and he had what he called a whisper generator which was in such a position that the sound of it was like a diesel grumbling, the noise bounced off the old church building and back across their wall. Again, it sounded like a bus in his backyard from 4:30 p.m. until 1 1 :15 p.m. Then the rehearsal which was supposed to be over at 10:00 p.m. broke up at 1 1 :15 p.m. and people then for the next hour proceeded to leave, and not all in an orderly manner. He said that they would talk to the church, but he wanted to keep the commission apprised of what was going on. As he understood it, these conditions were an agreement between Planning Commission and the church. He thanked the commission for their time. Mr. Drell stated that commission would receive a report from staff on August 19. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing consideration of a compliance review public hearing for CUP 91-8 to August 19, 1997 and directing staff to meet with the concerned parties. Motion carried 3-0. 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 D. REQUEST BY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN FOR FUTURE CVWD PROJECTS IN PALM DESERT. Mr. Drell indicated that the proposals submitted by CVWD were consistent with the General Plan and recommended approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion, determined that the future CVWD projects as described in the July 24, 1997 CVWD report on file in the Department of Community Development are consistent with the Palm Desert General Plan. Carried 3-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - None. B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - No meeting. Commissioner Beaty asked if the bid had been awarded for the south course. Mr. Drell replied no. He said the bid opening was today, but it wouldn't be awarded until the next council meeting. He indicated that the low bidder was Park West. Commission discussed the eligibility of Park West. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the Desert Willow meetings had been canceled and thought that RDA would like to have the committee's comments on the low bidder. Mr. Drell noted that it has been difficult to meet with the RDA Director. C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (July 17, 1997) Chairperson Ferguson noted that the commission's representative to the EDAC was not present. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - None. E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - None. Chairperson Ferguson asked if this committee has ever met. Mr. Drell replied no, but he had a document that he was ready to circulate among the committee members, the council, and perhaps the commission as well. It showed the now adopted land uses for Palm Desert and the recently adopted land uses for Rancho Mirage, plus the results of the discussions with staff relative to the future locations of signals and cross streets. F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - None. fir.. 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1997 s t XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Ferguson asked if the commission received their invitations to the Monterey Interchange opening. Commission concurred. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Carried 3-0. ' The meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. _ PHILIP DRELL, ecretary AT EST: JAM CA FE USO , Chairperson Palm Desert Plan g C mission Am 46