Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0819 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - AUGUST 19, 1997 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Ferguson, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sonia Campbell George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Steve Smith Bob Hargreaves Mark Greenwood Martin Alvarez Tonya Monroe +�+ IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the August 5, 1997 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the August 5, 1997 meeting minutes. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Fernandez and Jonathan abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: None. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 97-16 - FRANK TRANE, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between Lot 6 and Lot 7 located on Calle de la Silla. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 B. Case No. PMW 97-20 - MR. & MRS. PAUL D. LEVY, Applicant .r�+ Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between a residential lot (Lot 5) and golf course property on Menil Place within Bighorn Country Club. C. Case No. PMW 97-21 - FOXX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment for Lots 21 , 22 and 23 of Tract 23984-2 on Grand Canyon Lane within The Grove. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vlll. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos. TPM 28630 and ADJ 97-8 - PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT 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. Drell indicated that this case was continued from the last meeting to initiate some discussion between the applicant and surrounding property owners. Staff was recommending approval, but also provided commission with a resolution of denial because this item was also scheduled for City Council on August 28 at the request of the applicant and because of time considerations. Since the Council would be reviewing this and making the ultimate decision anyway, staff felt it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation, either yea or nay, based on what was before them. Chairperson Ferguson noted that finding number 2 to approve the Adjustment stated that there must be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that did not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity. He said he understood that this issue was raised at a previous Planning Commission hearing when the request was made by a private owner. It was denied. It went to City Council and was denied. He asked what was different now as opposed to then. Mr. Drell replied nothing, but stated that staff recommended approval then and was recommending approval now. Staff felt that there were similarly situated properties which exist in that area that have been divided and are smaller. It was an exceptionally large parcel, almost twice the size of the zoning limit in the zone. Historically, adjustments this small have been approved by the City, especially when the lots being created are of the proposed size. In the general area lot sizes range from 8,000 to 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 20,000 and 13,000 was probably larger than 80% of the lots in the entire City. That was the basis of the original staff recommendation and that had not changed. Chairperson Ferguson asked why this property was zoned R-1 14,000. Mr. Drell explained that when the city originally adopted the zoning map in 1975, they generally looked at existing subdivision patterns and zoned blocks as consistent with that pattern as they could. There were certain areas where they zoned property high and the zoning was larger than some of the parcels. In this case the zoning was considerably below this lot. There were a variety of lot sizes in this neighborhood. Chairperson Ferguson noted that finding number 3 said that the Planning Commission was supposed to make a strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. He stated that applied to the previous owner that was denied. Mr. Drell replied that none of it applied to the previous owner because variances applied to conditions of the land, not to ownership, and it applied to other similarly situated corner parcels that have been divided in the past. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Drell knew how many lots in the Palma Village area had lot splits done on corner parcels of this size. Mr. Drell noted that the staff report identified three large parcels that were granted adjustments. It typically resulted in construction of very nice houses on them. The problem was that it has been staff's experience that given the size of houses that typically got built in this neighborhood, larger wouldn't get developed and the houses that have developed on these large lots couldn't afford to landscape them and often they were not �.. landscaped at all or half the lot was fenced off and the other half abandoned. It has appeared to be economically impractical to develop these large lots in this neighborhood, in most cases, although there were exceptions. Chairperson Ferguson asked how many parcel splits had been denied previously, other than the parcel under discussion. Mr. Drell believed that in his 17 years on staff, this was the only one that had been denied. Chairperson Ferguson asked when the previous request was denied. Mr. Drell replied 1990. Chairperson Ferguson asked when it was acquired by the City. Mr. Drell deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Campbell asked if these homes would go through the Architectural Review Commission. Mr. Drell said yes. He indicated that while a conceptual plan was submitted with the staff report, to his knowledge it had not been officially submitted for the city's review process. They would have to go through Architectural Review. Chairperson Ferguson noted that finding number 4 said that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or be materially injurious to other property. He asked if commission should consider diminution of property value in that analysis. Mr. Drell said they could, if in fact the commission felt that the creation of 13,000 square foot lots would diminish someone's property value. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was a legitimate factor. Mr. Drell said the commission could interpret that as they see fit. r.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. TERRE LaROCCA noted that a couple of weeks ago she was before the commission with a request for a lot split of this site at San Pascual and De Anza. At that meeting the Planning Commission requested that they hold a meeting with the neighborhood residents. To date they had not been able to get together. If the commission so chose to continue this matter tonight, they were willing to do that until they could hold a meeting with the residents to try and address their concerns and alleviate some fears they may have. They would be proceeding to the City Council at their next meeting on April 28 to request participation in the program contingent upon a resolution of this matter with regard to the lot split and/or identification of a different parcel. She said that the builder has been working with the Planning Department in trying to identify and address an acceptable design for those sites and the developer was present to address the commission. MR. STEVE JONES, representing the Boys and Girls Club Building Horizon's Program, informed commission that the quality of the house that the students build is well above average and their price of $107,000 on these houses is close to what seemed to be the average selling price in the neighborhood. They did a comparison for the area and it looked like some of the selling prices had been as low as $1 10,000 in the recent year. The house they were proposing to build was a little over 2,000 square feet under roof, 1 ,465 square feet of living space, and about 450 square feet of garage and mechanical area. While the homes were built by junior and Mal senior high school students, under the direction of a project coordinator and assistants, many facets of construction were supervised by what he felt were some of the finest contractors in the valley. Most of the contractors donated their time to the construction process and donated materials as well. This included landscaping, which he felt was above average for the area. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked about previous projects that the Building Horizons program completed. Mr. Jones stated that they have constructed two homes each year for the last three years in La Quinta. The last two homes were built last year with about 24 students from area high schools. These homes were sold and went into escrow in April and closed in late June. These homes were typically bought by hardworking families. They just needed assistance with affordable housing. The homes last year were sold to single mothers, one with three children, one with two. Commissioner Jonathan asked if he experienced any resistance from the neighbors with any of those projects. Mr. Jones replied no. He stated that the homes were very typical for the neighborhood and the quality was above average for the neighborhood and the price was a little higher than the neighborhood in that case. _ i 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 •• Commissioner Beaty noted that the commission's packet indicated that there was to be a meeting last night and asked Ms. LaRocca about it. Ms. LaRocca said there wasn't a meeting because they weren't able to get the residents, as well as the developer, together. Mr. Reid, whom she talked to on Friday, was going to be out of town yesterday. They were more than willing to continue this until they could have that meeting. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there was any reason, since they all appeared to be at the meeting tonight, why this item couldn't be postponed until the end of the public hearings to give everyone an opportunity to talk. Ms. LaRocca agreed. Chairperson Ferguson said his concern was that they be given an opportunity to talk this through, talk to the builder to see what they are proposing, and his experience had been that a lot of opposition got bred by lack of information and once they were fully informed if they were still prepared to oppose it, he was more than willing to listen to their arguments, but he wanted them to at least hear, on a one-on-one with the Redevelopment Agency. He noted that the RDA Executive Director was present, the residents were here, and that was his suggestion. He indicated that conference room next door would be made available and Mr. Drell would check with them as the evening progressed. Action: vow It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, to move this hearing item down on the agenda by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 97-9 - FRANCES S. DeNUIT, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate an academic tutoring business for a maximum of 12 students within the building located at 73-350 El Paseo, Unit No. 105. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the subject property was located at the southwest corner of El Paseo and Lupine. The parcel is zoned general commercial and houses a 13,000 square foot building. This building houses 14 individually owned units and the majority of them were used as office space with a couple of retail spaces. The applicant was requesting to establish an academic tutoring business for a maximum of 12 students. The business would operate from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon Monday through Friday. The academic tutoring business would provide tutoring to students ranging from seventh to twelfth grade. The property had a separate parking lot located at the rear of the building, with a total of 48 off-street parking spaces. The site also had 20 on-street parking spaces which were available to the business directly in front and on the street side, which was Lupine Lane. The tenants shared 48 spaces and each was allocated 3.5. The school use required one space per three students and one for each instructor. The school would have a maximum of 12 students and one 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 l instructor which would require a total of five spaces. Staff conducted several site visits and parking surveys which indicated that parking was underutilized and the five spaces required could be accommodated with this underutilized parking. An average of 32 spaces were available on several weekdays. The building only has one vacancy and the businesses at that location generally served local demand on a year around basis. The property owners' association gave tenant approval and didn't feel that parking would be significantly impacted. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Campbell asked if it was unit number 105. Mr. Alvarez indicated it was 105 on the application, but when he checked this evening unit 105 appeared to be occupied by another user. He asked that the applicant clarify that question. MS. FRANCES DE NUIT, the applicant, informed commission that the front, less the 200 square feet, was currently occupied by a friend of hers as an incubator for her retail clothing. Ms. DeNuit said that she has the remainder of the building and their agreement to meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal was that the current pass-through door that is currently closed would be open during the school hours to meet the necessary health and safety codes. Commissioner Campbell asked if she would keep the retail frontage and if the students would be using that front door. Ms. DeNuit said that the front door would serve as a second door. The students would enter off the parking lot, which would be the front door for the school. The retail would remain in the front. Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Alvarez what effect, if any, the Pedestrian Overlay Zone had on this building. Mr. Alvarez replied no effect. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. Commissioner Beaty asked for clarification regarding the type of students that would be using this service since the hours would be 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., which were normal school hours. Ms. DeNuit stated that she was a musician and each student would become a pianist. She said she had a teaching studio for more than ten years and headed Music Teachers Association of California up in Stanislaw County for many years. They started at 6:00 a.m. before regular business office hours start. Commissioner Beaty asked if she would be tutoring in music only, or in various other subjects. Ms. DeNuit said that this would be a full academic, private school. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 +r. Commissioner Beaty asked for clarification that these students would not be attending another high school. Ms. DeNuit replied no, private school. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the application before the commission was for a conditional use permit that was described as an academic tutoring business. Ms. DeNuit said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was different in some way from a private school. Ms. DeNuit replied no. Commissioner Jonathan concluded that this was an application for a private school. Ms. DeNuit confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan said that students would then be dropped off, would stay there for the majority of the school day and be picked up at the end. Ms. DeNuit said that was correct, unless they drove their own cars. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on the student ages. Ms. DeNuit said they would be grades seven through 12. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were required at that age to have physical education/facilities. Ms. DeNuit replied no. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this would be a state licensed school. Ms. DeNuit said that the state doesn't license private schools. They provide an affidavit and if the student wants to use a private school in lieu of attending public, then the curriculum had to be provided. Some may only want to attend for one year and she said she uses the seminar approach to learning so that many people might choose to come to this tutoring environment as a one or two year project. She said the state of California does not require physical education every year. Mr. Drell asked if this was similar to home schooling. Ms. DeNuit replied no. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the schooling operation would be qualified to grant diplomas. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 i Ms. DeNuit replied yes. She explained that she is a licensed administrator in the state of California and has a preliminary administrative services credential. This was her specialty area. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the curriculum would be in compliance with state requirements for graduating with a high school diploma. Ms. DeNuit said that there are no state mandated requirements for private schools, however, in this particular environmental she was following the state's framework which the public schools in the state follow with her curriculum design because she felt that was critical. She said that she was applying for accreditation, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, that accredit both public and private schools in the western states. Commissioner Jonathan said they wouldn't be seeing school kids running around in the parking lot doing physical education exercises. Ms. DeNuit replied no. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that a child could begin at Ms. DeNuit's school in the seventh grade and finish through the twelfth grade. Ms. DeNuit said they could, but it wouldn't be likely. She was going to encourage a one-year enrollment in her program. Commissioner Campbell asked if she would be teaching all the subjects, not just music. Ms. DeNWt indicated they would have integrated language arts and social sciences and this year the theme was American democracy and volunteerism. The science and mathematics would be an integrated program and their laboratory would be the Living Desert in terms of their observations. She also planned to take the students to Cabo Pumo, south of La Paz, for an intercession for language and science and she would be working with the university in La Paz for their science curriculum and marine science there. Commissioner Campbell asked when the music sessions were conducted if she would begin that at 6:00 a.m. and most businesses would begin at 8:00 a.m. She asked if the other tenants knew that this was what was being proposed. Ms. DeNuit said they knew she had her concert grand in there and she plays every morning. Commissioner Campbell asked if there were any objections. Ms. DeNuit said they liked her music, so far, and sometimes they came over and asked her to play. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the area is zoned General Commercial and asked if schooling was a permitted use under that zoning pursuant to a conditional use permit. Mr. Drell replied that historically it has been. They have approved and sometimes not approved schools in the C-1 zone in the past. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they have approved preschools in residential zones, but didn't recall them in the General Commercial zone. He asked if it was a permitted use. Mr. Drell said that permitted conditional uses included grocery stores, hospitals, hotels, mortuaries, and public utilities. Basically what was prohibited were industrial uses in residential areas. Historically they have considered these, if they have been small enough and a low enough intensity, in the General Commercial zone. Mr. Drell noted they have also rejected some. He recalled that there was a large vocational school that was originally located in the area that the City encouraged to relocate when it became too large. He said there was a computer school that was approved on Highway 1 1 1 . They also have had the ballroom dance schools that were approved. A karate school. They have been very sensitive to them because they could, especially when they involved older students and large numbers and a turning over curriculum with class after class with students coming and going. That was something that has been considered. Some were approved and some were denied. Commissioner Campbell said that as far as being on El Paseo and as President of the El Paseo Business Association, they have almost exempted that building +�... from the Pedestrian Overlay zone because it was not located close to the sidewalk, so as long as there is a retail use in the front portion, she was not opposed to the tutoring school at this location. She felt it would bring more people to the street since the parents would be picking up the younger students that didn't drive. She was in favor of the school and moved for approval. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1823, approving CUP 97-9, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. %NW 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 C. Case No. CUP 97-11 - KELLY YAMADA, Applicant .nf Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a 4,200 square foot massage/health establishment for property located at 74- 121/125 Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Drell commented that massage establishments were regulated by the Zoning Ordinance to a certain extent and to a greater extent by the Municipal Code. The issue before the Planning Commission was its narrow land use impact and whether it was appropriate as a personal service, not how it relates or complies with that section of the code that specifically regulates the employment, location, etc. That would be an issue for the City Council when they apply for their massage permit and there would be proposals based upon the applicant's request, and to a certain degree with staff's support, to suggest some amendment to that code. This was purely how a personal service or salon would impact land use. Mr. Alvarez explained that the subject property is located on the south side of Highway 1 1 1 approximately 200 feet west of El Paseo. The site has six off- street parking spaces in front of the building. The applicant would also add eight additional spaces in the rear of the building, repaving both parking areas. The proposed operation was for a massage/health establishment within a 4200 square foot unit. The establishment would contain a variety of uses which include retail use, a small office space, massage rooms and an exercise/ instruction room. He broke down the specific uses by their square footage, the parking requirement by the City's ordinance, and the number of spaces required. He said that a total of 16 spaces were required based on the specific uses. The applicant would have a total of 14 off-street spaces. In front of the building there were also four on-street spaces which are directly in front of the building. He felt these spaces could accommodate the two spaces that were deficient from this project. He indicated that the hours of operation would be from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. seven days a week. The business would offer group classes like yoga and stretching in the mornings, massage classes in the afternoons, and some community education. The retail part of the business would vary depending upon the times of day people chose to shop. As far as parking, staff was prepared to recommend approval with the two deficient spaces being accommodated by the on-street parking. Based solely on its land use compatibility and zoning ordinance requirements, this project met those requirements. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there was a rear entry into this building. Mr. Alvarez said there was and access was from an alley which runs off of El Paseo. Chairperson Ferguson said he was trying to ascertain how realistic it would be that people would parking in the rear of the building. Mr. Alvarez stated that there is other parking in the rear that is utilized through that alley. There was a dentist office which sits in back. He felt it could be well utilized. Chairperson Ferguson said he would address that with the applicant as well. Chairperson Ferguson o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. 10 r1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 �,. MRS. KELLY YAMADA addressed the commission and said that she and her husband would own the business together and introduced Mr. Gary Hopkins, the current owner of the building. She stated that she was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mrs. Yamada anticipated that people would use the back parking lot area and being able to access their facility through the back door. Mrs. Yamada said they could make the back door accessible for public use or they could come around to the front. Chairperson Ferguson asked how many employees she would have. Mrs. Yamada indicated that would vary on the use at a given time. They would have six massage rooms, an instructional area usually one instructor at a time, one or two people in the office, and one person looking after the retail area. Chairperson Ferguson suggested a condition of approval that the employees be required to park in the rear of the facility. Mr. Drell said that could be added. Mrs. Yamada concurred. Commissioner Campbell stated that when she completed her site inspection, she `+ noticed that the parking to the east of the building was not for public parking, but belonged to another building. None of her employees or customers would be able to park in that location. Mrs. Yamada said that those spaces were fairly well marked as to their restricted use now and the anticipated times of higher use would be after hours of most businesses, on weekends when the resort clientele comes in, all day Saturday, and after hours. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mrs Yamada had noticed how lit the alley is in the evening. Mrs. Yamada stated that they would be happy to put in additional lighting if it was necessary. Chairperson Ferguson asked for a rough approximation of how many employees would be present during a slow time versus a high use time. Mrs. Yamada said that if, on a Saturday, they had six treatments going on at the same time, that would mean six employees, one in the Desert Massage Associate's office and at least one in the retail area. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he was very impressed by Mrs. Yamada's proposal included with the Commission's packet labeled Exhibit A and wanted to make it clear for the record that they were talking about the type of services 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 similar in nature in terms of quality and professionalism that they provided at Marriott's Rancho Las Palmas, La Quinta Resort, the Ritz Carlton, the Spa Hotel, etc. Mrs. Yamada said that all of the therapists would have a minimum of 500 hours, which is higher than required by Palm Desert. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Beaty stated that he was very impressed by the presentation and thought it seemed to be a professional operation. He was in favor and move for approval. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was subject to the additional condition of approval requiring employee parking in the rear. Commissioner Beaty concurred. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1824, approving CUP 97-1 1 , subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. CONTINUED 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 and August 5, 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 1 1 1 . Mr. Drell noted that this item was continued to the last meeting to allow the commission to see a more final development agreement. In the commission's packet there was a first draft of a more amended development agreement and he just passed out a second draft which occurred and had some minor corrections as a result of discussions with the applicant's attorney and was assured that they were nonsubstantive changes. The commission also had a definitive traffic study and a one paragraph summary of it. The mitigation measures required and identified were the same ones that were included in the l 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 �. last report. East and west bound left turn lanes from Highway 1 1 1 to Town Center Way and El Paseo, eastbound right turn lane from Highway 1 1 1 , resigning existing lanes, El Paseo/Town Center Way, reconfiguring the existing signal, and the installation of a traffic signal at El Paseo and Painters Path. The conclusion was that as a result of this project the level of service would remain at "C". In the year 2010 the level of service would be "D". He was assured by the Traffic Engineer and in studying the report, that intersection would be at "Y with or without that project as a result of normal growth. This one project at 125,000 square feet was probably one tenth of the commercial square footage located on the four corners: the Town Center, Palms to Pines, and 1 1 1 Town Center. He stated that he would like to delete one of the conditions of approval listed as Public Works condition 18 requiring the construction of a bridge. He clarified that this approval did not require the construction of a bridge. The bridge is shown on the plan and staff knew that the applicant intends to build it, but it is not a required improvement. He said there might be further discussions during the next week or so relative to that issue when it goes to Council. He indicated that it had to do with certain issues within the Redevelopment Agency DDIA. He said that the substantive amendments to the Development Agreement were as described in the last report relative to the requirement for a gourmet market, control of the tenants, the restaurants and pad stores, position of the adjustment to the agreement relative to the changed use, the changed size of the project, the fees, etc. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that the applicant would not be �r. mandated to build the bridge. Mr. Drell agreed and said they were recommending the deletion of that condition. Commissioner Campbell asked if the developer was still planning to build it. Mr. Drell deferred the question to the developer. Once the plan was approved, the City would expect the developer to build it unless an amended was requested for any reason, but the bridge would not be a specific requirement. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the plan approved by the commission in July with a bridge would be approved tonight, they were just not requiring him to build what was approved earlier. Mr. Drell said that they have never approved a plan. Commissioner Jonathan informed the commission that this was one of the two continued matters on the agenda that he reviewed the minutes and listened to the tapes on and he planned to participate in the discussion and vote on the matter. He understood that back in July Planning Commission gave approval and simply directed staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions. Mr. Drell said that the commission directed staff to prepare resolutions of approval and prepare conditions of approval since there weren't any and they had yet to vote on that resolution. Chairperson Ferguson said that the site plan before commission then was not before the commission tonight. Mr. Drell said it was, the site plan was the same. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that they have a site plan that includes a bridge, but the city wasn't requiring them to build it. Commissioner Jonathan asked why they were doing that since it was inconsistent and asked what the purpose was in deleting it. Mr. Drell said it wasn't being deleted from the plan, but as a condition of approval. For example, there were three pads shown out front. If the developer came in and said he didn't want to build on one of the pads and wanted to keep it open, the city couldn't say that they had 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 a to build that building. It was an amenity being provided which he need not provide. Commissioner Jonathan felt there were other implications which were very significant, including traffic flow, diversions and so forth. If the commission chose not to delete the condition, he asked if staff had a specific objection or if staff saw a possible problem in not deleting that condition. Mr. Drell suggested that should be answered by a representative of the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Beaty asked if this was the same bridge that was addressed under the Fire Department conditions. Mr. Drell concurred and clarified that if a bridge is built, it had to be built to a certain standard. Mr. Dave Yrigoyen, a Redevelopment Agency representative, said they were present to address that specific item with regards to building the bridge. Essentially their concern was that the Disposition Development Agreement that they initially agreed to with Lowe Development identified that should the City or Agency request or require the building of the bridge, the Agency would participate with the construction of that bridge in the amount of $400,000. That was placed in there as an option in the event that the City or Agency saw a need for that to be developed, they would do so. They have had several discussions with the City's Engineering Department with regard to the development of that bridge and essentially the traffic patterns that they way generated at that development would not require the development of that bridge as a condition for approval of that development and essentially what they were saying was that since that issue was not something that would require the approval of the development, it should not be something that the City would require for the development and the developer would build it. If he saw a need for it and the City or Agency saw a need for it, then the City or Agency would assist the developer in doing that. Chairperson Ferguson concluded that in all this time the applicant has been operating under the assumption that they would build a bridge and it wasn't until tonight that the city decided they didn't want a bridge because it would cost too much. Mr. Yrigoyen replied that it wasn't necessarily that they didn't want it, but that it should be an option when the City or Agency saw a need for it, but not as a condition of approval of the development. The prior development did not require the bridge to be built and essentially it was solely at the option of the City or Agency to assist in the development, whether they saw a need for it or not. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Yrigoyen was partly motivated from a financial standpoint, in his opinion, and what he was hearing Mr. Yrigoyen say was that they didn't have a specific objection to the bridge, but from the Agency's perspective, they didn't see a need to make it a condition of approval. Mr. Yrigoyen said that was essentially correct. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Drell if the bridge exists in the precise plan, if it would be a violation of the Planning Commission's approval if the bridge did not get built. Mr. Drell said the applicant would have to come back with an amendment to the precise plan. Chairperson Ferguson asked which engineers Mr. Yrigoyen was referring to; Mr. Yrigoyen said they talked with Joe Gaugush and Dick Folkers, who essentially indicated to RDA that was not a condition that they would place on the development and that was not something they saw a need for with regard to traffic circulation patterns. Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Greenwood if the } traffic study and his memo were predicated on a bridge being there or if in his 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 .. professional opinion it was immaterial. Mr. Greenwood replied that the traffic study is based on the bridge being there and shows approximately 5 percent of project traffic using that bridge. Specifically, 10 percent of exiting traffic. He believed that the peak volume was about 40 vehicles per hour. If those 40 vehicles were to use the other three project driveways, he didn't believe that would seriously affect the level of service. It might make some difference, but he felt it would remain in the same basic range. He clarified that the overall level of service for the intersection would be C in the year 2010 based on this traffic study. The D was the worst movement at an intersection that would be a particular left turn or particular through movement, so the worst movement would be a D but the overall intersection would be a C and that represented very good traffic conditions. Commissioner Jonathan suggested that it might be appropriate to continue this matter to a later point on the agenda and revisit the earlier matter since the people who were formerly first were now back. Chairperson Ferguson said he still had a lot of questions about this case and agreed with Commissioner Jonathan. Mr. Yrigoyen pointed out that in their review of the August 5 continued conditions of approval, that item was not a condition of approval at that time and was now a condition of approval at this point in time. He was wondering if that was an issue at that time, why it wasn't a condition of approval then. Chairperson Ferguson said it was because he didn't know about it. Mr. Yrigoyen said that he didn't mean him specifically, he just wanted to bring out at this time. %W Chairperson Ferguson asked for a minute motion to continue this discussion until after they resume the discussions on the.parcel split. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, postponing this item to later on the agenda by minute motion. Motion carried 5- 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos. TPM 28630 and ADJ 97-8 - PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Applicant Request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 26,136 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. Chairperson Ferguson reopened discussion on this public hearing and asked for the applicant to address the commission with a progress report. Ms. LaRocca thanked the residents for meeting with staff. They discussed the background of-this project and how they got to where they are tonight. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 i In addition, the program was described and how it has worked in the city of La Quinta and how they expected it to work in the city of Palm Desert, along with a description of the design and construction of the house. They came to some agreements and that was that it was a good program and that the quality of the house was not going to be a negative quality. It would be of high quality construction because of the supervision given to the students. They were not able to agree on the split of this lot at this time, but she indicated for the record that the house is 2,000 square feet under roof. They anticipated that the appraised value would be around $130,000 although it would sell for much less because of the Agency's participation in making it affordable. With that, she suggested that the commission take comments from the residents. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the findings required for this application sounded similar to that of a variance, yet they were being told it was an adjustment and they've previously considered exceptions. He asked for clarification. Mr. Drell said that it is an adjustment, which is a minor variance. Typically the adjustment is heard at staff level. It is an in-office decision. Notices go out. Based on response to the notice the Planning Director makes the decision. Based upon his intimate knowledge of the history of this property, he immediately declined to make that decision and scheduled it before the Planning Commission. A variance under 10 percent on lot sizes is called an adjustment in the code, but it was in the same section as variances and required the same findings as a variance. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that the same standards the commission applies were the same as if it were a greater than 10 percent # variance. Mr. Drell said it was a matter of interpretation, but the commission could evaluate degree of hardship, degree of exceptionality, etcetera, based on the degree of variance or adjustment requested. The greater the variance from the code, the greater burden has to be placed on making those findings. With a teeny adjustment, maybe they only had to find a teeny hardship. Chairperson Ferguson said that could mean it depended on the eye of the beholder. Mr. Drell concurred and said it was a matter of judgement. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. J. TERRY REID, 73-691 De Anza Way in Palm Desert, stated that he had a couple of question for RDA. First, they received legal notices in the mail and said that the last one they received, the one for August 28, said that the Case No. was TPM 28630 and was to be put in the Post on August 14. It was, but in the Post is said Case No. TPM 25900. He asked which one they were going to use and about the expiration on TPM 25900. Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Reid if he was sincerely confused about why he was at the meeting tonight or if he was raising a technical objection. Mr. Reid said it was technical because he had others to go along with this. Chairperson Ferguson referred the question to the City Attorney and staff director. _ 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 ,., Mr. Alvarez stated that he could clear up the confusion. Originally this parcel map was noticed under the Case No. TPM 25900. Soon after, they found out that the parcel map had been denied and would have to given a new number. Once it was noticed again for City Council, the correction was made with the new parcel number. Chairperson Ferguson asked the City Attorney if the notice was legally defective. Mr. Hargreaves stated that generally, notices reviewed under a substantial compliance prejudice standard, so if there was substantial compliance and no one could bring forth any real prejudice from whatever anomaly might have existed, then the notice would be adequate. Mr. Reid said that he had no opposition, although he had more opposition on the notice and the property assessor parcel number. He asked if the City owned the prescribed APN number 627-143-009 as advertised in the legal notice. Chairperson Ferguson said he assumed they think they do. Mr. Reid stated that he had the answer to that. He said that the owner of lot 009 resides in Los Angeles, Mr. Robert S. Scott. The notice states that APN. Chairperson Ferguson asked him again if he was raising this as a technical deficiency. 1r Mr. Reid said that the legal notice was inaccurate and misleading. It said the southeast corner and it was on the northwest corner. Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Reid if he was confused about which piece of property that is being discussed tonight. He asked if he relied on the APN number and parcel map number, or if he recognized the map and notice. Mr. Reid said he recognized the map and notice and then when he checked the APN number that was when he found the problem. Chairperson Ferguson clarified that the City does own the parcel in question. Mr. Reid agreed, but not as listed under that APN number. Chairperson Ferguson concurred, but noted that if it was in substantial compliance and there was no confusion generated by it other than his very diligent research. Mr. Reid said that the only other thing was, if they let them build on that lot and gave them an approval, then they could put an injunction not to build those houses because it was advertised falsely. He asked if that was correct. `.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson deferred to the City Attorney. Mr. Hargreaves answered that if a court reviewed the adequacy of the notice of standard to be in substantial compliance and prejudice, then if someone would come forth with evidence that there was actual prejudice due to confusion with the notice, then the court could possibly hold that the notice was inadequate. Mr. Reid stated that he felt it was an admirable program for the high school students to build those homes and he was in favor of that, but was opposed to any lowering of the value of their houses. MR. BOB DOWNS, 73-748 De Anza, stated that he lives directly across the street from this piece of property. He said he has no problem with the lots being split as long as the houses had 2,000 square feet or better of living area and that they do a better job of showing them the plans of what they would look like and more detail on exactly what would be built there. If they don't go at least 2,000 square feet on the house, he was totally opposed to any split. With 2,000 square feet, if it was sold a second time it would be worth that much more. Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Downs how many square feet his home is. Mr. Downs said his home is 2400 square feet, plus a garage. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Downs was referring to a 2,000 square foot minimum living area, exclusive of a garage. Mr. Downs concurred and did not want it to include any other out building. The 2,000 square feet should only be for living, dining, bedrooms, as long as it was really a living area. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was because the surrounding homes were that size or larger. Mr. Downs agreed that the homes he knows of were that size or larger. He said there were smaller lots and smaller houses, but that was why they became a city to start with because they could direct the way they wanted to go and the County of Riverside let people do what they wanted up to a certain point. Since they became a city, most of that had gone away. He felt this was a direct case of going back the other way of where someone gets what they want and didn't worry about anyone else in the neighborhood. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Downs presented this concern to the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Downs said yes, but only since he arrived at the meeting tonight. Chairperson Ferguson noted that with housing projects such as this, they record documents against the title on the property and asked if that would happen in this case. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 Mr. Downs thought they could put the CC&Rs where the house had to be built. Chairperson Ferguson added restricting use and transferability in the future which may affect the value that Mr. Downs believes these will have upon its second transferral. Ms. LaRocca spoke from the audience and indicated that there would be regulatory agreements. Chairperson Ferguson said his only point was that it might not have the resale value that Mr. Downs anticipates. MR. C. ERIK BALTZAR, located on the south side of the lot, stated that his original house was over 2800 square feet and as far as $105,000 being an average, he owed over $130,000 on his house. He presumed what they were saying was that he should walk away from his house and having paid down on it all these years is a waste. As far as the high school program was concerned, they were all for it. They'd like to see them build one house on this lot. This is a magnificent lot. Unfortunately it was a corner lot and on a corner lot there were greater setbacks than on a normal lot. If there was some kind of arrangement that the city could come up with, put in a 2500, 2800, 3000 square foot home, the whole neighborhood would be working with them. They didn't want to see a magnificent lot split becoming like everything else. If they looked in the neighborhood, they would find the largest drug bust in Palm Desert. One house over from him there was a small house, small lot, renters and across the street and up one house they couldn't keep renters in that house and there were constant theft and constant problems, constant noise at all hours day and night. Police departments were having to expand their services, more units and more officers because they were bringing in undesirable elements. They were advertising for problems. He wanted to see the integrity of these lots preserved simply because some day he would like to sell his house and at least get out of it what's owed on it and if possible a little extra would be nice. They were looking at a crime area, an investment area because of health, safety and welfare and if they looked at the distance from the fire hydrant on the corner of San Pascual and De Anza to his driveway, they scarcely have room to park a car, which was very unsafe. He has seen people park across the street from his house and be rammed because of people coming around the corner too quickly. There were a lot of problems with that area. He said it was a very long area from the fire hydrant down the face of De Anza and two driveways on that street would be very congestive. He stated that at the other house there were cars parked no the lawn, on the driveway, beside it, and in front because there wasn't enough room. He wasn't trying to say this was bad, they were saying that it flies in La Quinta because the average lots in La Quinta were 50 x 100 feet. A house like this would fit quite well on that kind of a lot. This lot was over 100 by 200 feet and this was the only place in the valley that he was aware of that there was a lot that size. He asked why they should cut it down and degrade it and make it like everyone else. They have 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 something special and they should try and keep that. He acknowledged that some of the houses haven't been landscaped, but he thought they needed to look into some social issues and other problems that weren't really government related as to what has happened to some of the lots and why they didn't develop the way they wanted them developed. He felt commission should vote no on this even though it was a good project and come up with a way to let the Boys and Girls Club to build one house on that lot and help their property values go up and get someone in there that would increase their safety and help stabilize the market and preserve what they have already gotten. Chairperson Ferguson said he hoped that Mr. Baltzar wasn't suggesting that crime was associated with the number of square feet in a home. Mr. Baltzar said that the number of rentals increases crime. Chairperson Ferguson clarified that he wasn't talking about rentals. Mr. Baltzar felt that the more youngsters there were in a smaller environment where they didn't have adequate room to play or to grow. The other day there were kids throwing bottles and breaking bottles on rocks. They should be home playing. He asked why they weren't home playing and were out breaking beer bottles and abandoned bottles and trash and answered it was because they didn't have room at home to play. The lots were too small. Chairperson Ferguson stated with all due respect that his own children live on a lot that is 3,000 square feet smaller than the one proposed here. Mr. Baltzar said that his children have parents and have direction. Chairperson Ferguson asked if he was suggesting that anyone who lives on a lot of this size or has a home of this size weren't fit parents. Mr. Baltzar replied no, but from what he sees in that neighborhood right now, they need to preserve the integrity of what they have and the greatness they have in that neighborhood, which is the size of the lots and try to stabilize them. Chairperson Ferguson said he wasn't trying to give Mr. Baltzar a hard time and those were not his issues and he hoped that because the city has programs that assist people in getting $130,000 homes didn't make them hoodlums or children evil. The city has Desert Rose which is a high quality low and moderate income housing development with almost no crime, Merano is a private development starting in the $130,000 range and they have no crime problems and the city manager lives there, and he had a difficult time finding the nexus between the size of the lot and the size of the home and the crime in Mr. Baltzar's neighborhood. That didn't mean he didn't have other concerns, but he was troubled by some of the conclusions he thought Mr. Baltzar was drawing about socioeconomic status. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 Mr. Baltzar suggested that Chairperson Ferguson talk to the police department to ask them about the increase in crime in their neighborhood and the need for more units and more officers to comb the neighborhood. Chairperson Ferguson said he didn't disagree with Mr. Baltzar, but pointed out that they were talking about brand new homes, not dilapidated absent owner homes that were leased out at a fraction of whatever value they may have had. He agreed that there were problems in the Palma Village area but he wasn't sure that what the Redevelopment Agency proposal contributed to those problems. Mr. Baltzar felt that they were trying to take a neighborhood that was set up to have large lots, large homes and comfortable surroundings for the people that enjoy that particular element, irregardless of social economic standings away from them, and creating something different that was not intended to be that. If people want to live in La Quinta that was wonderful. If people wanted to live off Haystack and Highway 74 that was wonderful. Of the three people they talked with in the other room, two lived in Bermuda Dunes and didn't live in Palm Desert. One lived off of Haystack. None of them live in this neighborhood. They didn't want smaller houses or smaller lots in their neighborhood. MRS. BETTY CRAWFORD, 44-560 San Pascual, stated that she canvassed her immediate block and all around San Carlos and San Juan, across De Anza at several places. Because of the heat she hadn't been able to get to everyone, but did have a lot of signatures of people that just don't want the �. lot divided. They voted against it seven years ago and still felt the same way now. She turned in the petition. She also said that she had a letter that should be turned into the City Council. Chairperson Ferguson said that the commission could review the letter to get it into the record and then they would forward it on to City Council for her. Chairperson Ferguson stated for the record that he was handed a letter from John Bayardo and about 30 signatures of residents on San Pascual who were in opposition to the proposal. He circulated the documents to the other commissioners. Chairperson Ferguson invited the applicant to readdress the commission. Ms. LaRocca stated that with regard to the tentative parcel map, when that was submitted they did note that there was an incorrect APN number and they immediately contacted the developer and he contacted city staff. They assumed that change was made but it may not have been. The Redevelopment Agency owns parcel number 627-171-001 , not 009. Regarding to the Unit Regulatory Agreement, that regulatory agreement would be recorded with the County Recorder's office and it would restrict resale price of the home based on a formula usually in conjunction with cost of living increases or increases in median income by HUD. There would be restrictions with regard to income of a buyer. The house would have to be owner occupied. It could not be a rental property. There would also be v 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 _ a various other conditions included in the regulatory agreement. In response to that question, there would be a regulatory agreement recorded. Mr. Jones said that it was asked in their meeting if he lived in this neighborhood what he would think of this project. He thought there was a great mix of housing in this neighborhood and in this particular area. There was a wide range of home sizes and if there were no precedents for lot splits, then he might think about it, but there is precedence and the homes they are proposing are not all that much different if different at all from other homes in the immediate neighborhood. They came to the Redevelopment Agency with a market value of a little over $125,000. RDA put a cap of $107,000 on the house. That wasn't to say they would build a smaller house or a lesser house, but that was the cap that the Redevelopment Agency gave them. If they were to sell it at market rate, they would go back to $125,000 as the minimum price. They anticipate a very close review by the Planning Commission because of the nature of this program. Mr. Drell addressed a number of concerns at the last meeting that they have responded to with a new site plan and they expected to go through a lot of rigorous review on this program before they get under way. He thought it was the nature of it and expected to do better than typical. They expected the design quality to be better than typical because it is a program that draws a great deal of attention, not only in the community, but nationally. This program has been awarded top honors by the Boys and Girls Club in 1996 as one of the best educational programs in the country within the Boys and Girls Club system. They have received many other accolades for this program and the vacant lot was probably more of a distraction and more of a cause for problems in the neighborhood than the two homes they propose to build there. MR. CARLOS ORTEGA, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, stated that staff has given the commission the rules to consider and he wouldn't talk about crime. He wanted to relay a story to the commission. About ten years ago the City owned 12 lots in the Palma Village area, lots around 7,000 square feet in size. They had a proposal to build on 11 of those under the self-help program and the neighborhood was very concerned that those lots would be built for affordable homes and as a consequence, the conditions of approval in terms of size and design and quality of design were more astringent on these then they would have been had they not been under this program. What resulted was that the homes built under this program were of higher quality. They were larger than those that existed in the area and the families were screened. The families that moved into the homes had a more stringent screening than would normally apply in the open market. Looking at those homes now, they were better kept than those in the surrounding neighborhood. If that was an issue, he didn't think that this was something the neighbors needed to worry about. Those families were well screened before they could participate in the program and they have an incentive to do well because they have all those restrictions. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 ►•• Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Jones if the home on the new plan was the same number of square feet (1400 square feet). Mr. Jones concurred and said the revised plan was for 1 ,465 square feet, plus the garage and mechanical area. Commissioner Campbell asked if he would have any problem building a home 2,000 square feet in size as requested by Mr. Downs. Mr. Jones said they wouldn't have a problem other than they wouldn't fall within the parameters of affordable housing and would not be economically feasible for them. Chairperson Ferguson asked why it wouldn't be economically feasible. Mr. Jones clarified that they were under a cap of $107,000 for an affordable home and to increase the footage from 1465 to 2000 square feet wouldn't work. Chairperson Ferguson addressed the question to the Redevelopment Agency. He felt that the commission was put in an impossible situation by the Redevelopment Agency and if it was a matter of simply increasing the square footage to help preserve property values, he asked why that couldn't be worked out. Ms. LaRocca stated that the home would have to be available for a family within certain income parameters, no higher than 120% of the county median income and this home was targeted to families of about 80% of the county median income; 100% of the county median for a family of four was $46,300. If they took a family at 80%, they were talking about $32,000- $36,000 annual income and they could not afford a home of 2,000 square feet given the sales price unless the Agency was willing to buy that mortgage down. That is what would have to happen. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that the Redevelopment Agency could buy the mortgage down. Ms. LaRocca concurred and would have to be an Agency decision. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that they had a situation where both parties are right in some senses. The applicant has a good project before the commission that was conceptually very appealing. It was good for the people involved that would do the construction, good for the people involved that would occupy the homes and it could be good for the neighborhood to have something other than a vacant lot. The problem seemed to be the concerns of the neighbors on the deterioration of their neighborhood and/or their property values. It seemed that if they could allow the applicant's request to split the lots, r.. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 because if this lot was a few square feet more this wouldn't be an issue before commission. It was close enough that the applicant, in his opinion, has a right to split the lot. However, to deal with the residents' concerns which have some degree of validity, the requirement for 2,000 square feet of living area was reasonable for the 14,000 square foot lots. If they imposed that requirement that was a reasonable compromise of both parties. The Redevelopment Agency would then not be required to build and if the condition made it economically unfeasible to build it, so be it. However, if the Agency saw a need and wanted to subsidize the mortgage or do whatever it needed to get the project built in such a way that it was palatable to the neighbors, then they could have a win- win situation. Unless there was another idea that seemed to be the only way to have a win-win situation, which was specifically to allow the lot division, but require a minimum 2,000 square foot home on each lot of living space. Chairperson Ferguson noted that he requested that this be continued at the last meeting in the hope that the Redevelopment Agency could get together with the residents. That didn't happen until tonight. His concerns about the Agency and he alluded to this last week. There was a private property owner that came to the City and asked to divide that lot and the Planning Commission said no; it was appealed to the City Council and they said no, then all of a sudden the City steps in, buys the lot and wants to do the exact same thing because they are an adjunct to the City and have more power and authority than a private property owner and all of a sudden the commission was being asked to say yes. That troubled him enormously. He thought that people wanted to have faith and trust in their government and the perception that the city wouldn't allow the previous property owner to do it so that we could come in and buy it ourselves he found particularly troubling. The other aspect that concerned him was that he didn't believe that the standards for an exception, the deviation, the variance or whatever they wanted to call it, were met. He didn't think there was an extraordinary hardship by not granting the parcel split. He thought there was an extraordinary loss of opportunity for the neighborhood and for the City. He had no quarrel with Desert Horizons whatsoever and thought they would build quality housing. He was convinced that low and moderate income affordable housing was not a crime problem and worked in the city. It troubled him that the residents were never asked if they wanted this in their neighborhood before the city bought the parcel. When he said that he thought the Agency put the commission in an impossible position, he thought they had. If the commission turns the request down the city is stuck with a 28,000 square foot lot or so, but that was really the City's fault. In his opinion they should have done their homework. If they go ahead and grant the parcel split, he agreed with Commissioner Jonathan that they were talking about a de minimis variation of what the zoning is in the area and if someone came in with exactly a 28,000 square foot lot and wanted to split it into two 14,000 square foot lots, they wouldn't be having this discussion. What troubled him about the residents, and he didn't impute this to all of them, was two things. Number one was Mr. Downs' comment about 2,000 square feet making him happy and he wasn't sure it would make the rest of them happy and didn't want to forge that compromise right now. Number two, they live in a community where the median age in Palm Desert is now 31 .5. There are children and people of moderate income and means. He wouldn't equate that with crime. He knew there was crime in their 3 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 ..• neighborhood, knew there were dilapidated houses in the neighborhood, and knew that there were absentee owners that didn't take care of their properties, there were approximately 200 weed abatement cases from people who don't take care of their property. He didn't believe it was fair, right or just for them to impute all those social evils onto the Redevelopment Agency and Desert Horizons. He has seen the homes in Desert Rose, our other housing projects and they do work and decent people earn less than $50,000 per year. He didn't want to impute those comments to everyone, but to the extent that they were worried about vandalism and crime because of what they were doing here, he has never seen any evidence of it in our city. Having said that, he had to choose whether to go with the city and a program that is beneficial to students and which in his own view felt was ultimately beneficial to the neighborhood, or should he defer to the residents because they live there, it was their neighborhood and they know what is good for their neighborhood under a standard where the City is asking for something that is extraordinary and it was akin to a variance and there must be exceptional hardship which he didn't see. Given a choice of those two options, he had to go with the residents. Had the proper homework been done and if they had worked with the residents and this project hadn't been forced upon them without their prior consent or consultation, they might not be having this meeting tonight. He wanted to see some sort of resolution worked out and wasn't sure the time they have it tonight was appropriate at all and didn't know if there was a resolution in terms of how big the homes are and if the Redevelopment Agency could "eat it" and wasn't comfortable making the Redevelopment Agency build 2,000 square foot homes tonight if it didn't meet with their approval, so he would not be voting in favor of the parcel split tonight. He would be more than happy to vote for additional time for them to talk or in the alternative he would have to vote in the negative. Mr. Downs spoke from the audience and asked if he would be willing to ask for a show of hands on who would be in favor if there was a condition requiring a 2,000 square foot minimum living area. Chairperson Ferguson did so and noted that it appeared that the vote was unanimous in favor. Mr. Downs asked Mr. Ortega to address the issue. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he didn't want to put Mr. Ortega in a position of having to analyze this economically and giving them a decision tonight. Commissioner Jonathan said he appreciated Chairperson Ferguson's comments and he agreed that they were put in an awkward position that none of them like and they would prefer applications where the applicant and all residents are in agreement. Unfortunately as hard as they try, that doesn't always happen and they can't always have all the parties involved completely satisfied. He said he was motivated in this case to find a compromise that is maybe workable to all parties involved and he was convinced, particularly after seeing the show of hands, that the compromise he proposed earlier is a reasonable one. He would make a motion to that effect. `1W 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson clarified his point that it wasn't that they could achieve quad unanimity of purpose every time, it was just that he didn't feel the effort had been made and since the City was the applicant, he felt the onus was on us to make that effort and not wait until the night of the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Jonathan said that he was speaking more from his heart that he felt uncomfortable whenever there isn't complete agreement and preferred it when everyone was happy and felt that perhaps with this compromise it might eventually result in that. He said his motion would approve the parcel split with the requirement that each residence have a minimum living area of 2,000 square feet. Chairperson Ferguson asked for a second to the motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No.1825, approving TPM 28630 and ADJ 97-8, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Chairperson Ferguson called for a two minute recess. Chairperson Ferguson reconvened the meeting and stated that the commission would continue with Miscellaneous Item A which was continued from earlier in the meeting. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF 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 and August 5, 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 1 1 1 . Chairperson Ferguson noted that the discussion left off at whether or not condition number 18 should be included in the conditions of approval. He opened it back up for commission discussion. Mr. Drell felt that the issue was that there are two agreements: a development agreement and a DDIA with the Redevelopment Agency. The applicant was requesting that those agreements be amended to allow him to do a project which those agreements do not presently permit him to do and like any agreement 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 •• when one party opens up that agreement for renegotiation, then technically all the points become open for renegotiation. The City and the Redevelopment Agency have the option of refusing to amend the agreement. How they condition it or what obligations are made per this new agreement was something that they could base on the fact that they were now granting approval of a land entitlement that was specifically withheld when that first agreement and DDIA were signed. Therefore, as part of the granting of this amendment to the agreements, what was included in the first didn't have to be included in the second. Chairperson Ferguson stated that if he understood it correctly, the developer who submitted the precise plan (which he wasn't at the meeting to consider although he listened to the tapes and read the minutes) he was under the assumption that there would be Redevelopment Agency money to fund the bridge, put it in the site plan, and had staff prepared resolutions of approval back in July when this was voted on, it would have been in there and they wouldn't be having this discussion. But for staff thinking that it would be denied and not preparing resolutions of approval and this being continued over a month, now it looked like they were trying to save $400,000. Mr. Drell stated that he was unaware of the provision of the connection between the requirement of a bridge and the Redevelopment Agency participation in the project. He was unaware of any financial participation or didn't remember any financial participation by the Agency. In his discussions with the developer on this particular project, he didn't believe he ever said that he must have a bridge. Once it was there, we said he should have it and it was shown, but was unaware of the Agency's financial obligation. Mr. Ortega addressed the commission. He said that they were the ones that negotiated the agreement and he could provide the background. He recalled that when those properties came up for rezoning in 1990 there were a lot of concerns from the neighbors behind them as to giving the parcel access. That was a big issue. Consequently the City Council decided to zone it Office Professional and the reason they negotiated that in that specific fashion was they said that if they denied them access from the streets such that practically the only way they could access that parcel was through Desert Crossing, and the City makes that decision and wouldn't give them all that access for traffic purposes, but they still felt that if they complied with the Office Professional zoning, that they could tell them to get it through Desert Crossing and under those circumstances they would participate. There was testimony that said that was not the case at all. That it would not make an essential difference because they have now provided other accesses onto that parcel. Also, the zoning and the plan that were the subject of the DA and DDIA was what was before them. What they were saying is that based on circumstances that they are considering right now, the zoning and different use and the traffic circulation says that given the accesses that are before them, the fact that the bridge does not become an absolute requirement and they were asking that the bridge not be a condition of approval. r.. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson asked the applicant to comment on their understanding of the bridge. MR. TED LENNON, 72-058 Clancy Lane, stated that he too was involved in the development of the original DDIA with Mr. Ortega and the City and he had a different recollection of it. The issues at that time where it was originally going to be part of the original funding and it was at the City's request that it be put off and only become part of the package if and when the other side of the property was developed and with that, they said that was okay and fair as long as the money was set aside and budgeted for and it was called for in the agreement. They worked with staff to have the bridge and the original statement of conditions that came from traffic division did in fact have the bridge in it and then for some reason the next edition came out and they subsequently wrote to Chairperson Ferguson a letter saying that condition #18 had suddenly come out of the agreement that they had. They went back and negotiated with Mr. Drell and the bridge issue and it all came back in. He thought with this agreement that they had reached all conditions of approval with the city with the exception of one item about the replacement of existing businesses. He thought they had renegotiated that. This agreement says that if they vacate a building they have to have a new tenant operating full within six months and he thought they renegotiated that to have a firm contract within six months and in within one year. That was the only thing he thought was left as a change and that they had negotiated everything else. The bridge itself he thought was an obvious need of the project given that they have three right outs from the project at this time and part of their traffic mitigation which is in r.r1 here as a condition of approval called for the bridge and when he originally brought up the question of why the bridge was out, he was told that it was missed and the-other paragraph would cover that. It was agreed and was presented to commission back in the proposal. Chairperson Ferguson said his concern was that Mr. Lennon and Mr. Smith had many meetings with Sandpiper residents. The site plan went through innumerable revisions with certain concessions being made. Chairperson Ferguson said he met with Mr. Hoover and several of the association members and as he understood it, the site plan was a negotiation of what the developer could live with and what Sandpiper could live with. His assumption was that Mr. Lennon had essentially $400,000 to bargain with because he was counting on money coming from the city and negotiated a site plan with all the concessions in it and the city was pulling away the $400,000. He asked if that was accurate. Mr. Lennon said that was close. Commissioner Beaty asked about the total cost for the bridge. Mr. Lennon said it hadn't been re-costed, but they were usually looking at about $60 per square foot. It was a two-lane bridge, a pedestrian right-of- way, and was designed for golf carts. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 �... Commissioner Beaty asked if it was $800,000. Mr. Lennon said guessed that it was between $350,000 and $450,000. Maybe $500,000. Commissioner Campbell stated that she couldn't understand how we went through all of these meetings and then all of a sudden now, when it was their understanding that there would be a bridge there, now all of a sudden the Redevelopment Agency was asking that the condition be excluded. Mr. Drell clarified that he was not requesting the deletion of the bridge, they were requesting that it not be required. Chairperson Ferguson asked if, in the final analysis, the project as sited needed a bridge. Commissioner Jonathan felt that the issue between the applicant and the Redevelopment Agency was a financial one. The precise plan has a bridge and the Planning Commission would be approving the site with the bridge and if they were not going to build a bridge, it would have to come back before the commission and they could disapprove it at that point. Since this was slated to go to the City Council anyway at its next meeting, he was comfortable with granting the approvals and if necessary, leave this one condition #18 aside and advise the City Council that the commission feels this is an issue and was largely a financial one. The commission was approving the project with the bridge and the council could decide on the financial aspect. Chairperson Ferguson said that he was very uncomfortable with that. He didn't feel there was anything taboo about financing. Having sat through meetings with Sandpiper and having sat through meetings with the developer and knowing that they were banking on the assistance from the city to pull the rug out from under them now at the 1 1 th hour was unconscionable. He was not saying they couldn't take it out. He felt they should approve what everyone thought was being approved and let council worry about removing that condition. Commissioner Jonathan said they were approving a precise plan that has a bridge. Mr. Drell noted that the commission was recommending approval to council. Therefore, it was ultimately on the Council's head. Chairperson Ferguson asked if condition #18 would be in there. Mr. Drell said if the commission chose to have that as a condition, then that would be their recommendation to council. Chairperson Ferguson stated that the concern in his mind was that the traffic problems and ingress and egress were really created when there was an absolute moratorium placed on any access off of Painters Path. Therefore they had people being compressed into awkward traffic problems that created congestion and which he felt was an illogical situation. He wasn't here at the meeting and the commission voted approval. He thought that the bridge was a release valve for some of that traffic, 40 cars per hour which he didn't feel was de minimis and he also felt it benefit the residents to have access from Desert Crossing without having to go out on Highway 111 . Commissioner Jonathan said he agreed with him completely. Chairperson Ferguson stated that now, everything was open to renegotiation just because they continued it for two months. He suggested that they be given access from Painters Path or give them what they thought they had and had agreed to all along. Commissioner Jonathan stressed that they would not be changing the approval. The approval contains the bridge. The inclusion or non- inclusion of condition #18 was strictly a financial issue. They could replace the wording on 18 to say "who is going to pay for the bridge". That was what %RW 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 condition #18 was addressing. The real issue of whether they have a bridge or not was nonexistent because the precise plan has a bridge and the commission was recommending the project with a bridge. He felt it was important that they do so because he felt that bridge was important. Chairperson Ferguson indicated they were only approving a precise plan that was drawn up the way it was drawn up because the understanding was that the city would be requiring a bridge. That was the only reason that precise plan looks the way it does. In order for the city to be honest about this, he wanted to approve it the way everyone thought it was and if the city wants to come back and say they didn't want to make this a condition, let the city council take it out. Commissioner Beaty felt the point had been made and was ready for a motion. Mr. Drell said he wanted to respond to a comment made by Mr. Lennon. He said Mr. Lennon was correct that in their discussions on the development agreement, page 4, dealing with the replacement of existing businesses relative to the requirement that if a qualifying existing business relocates in the property, it was the obligation of the developer to get a replacement tenant in within six months and he would be willing to suggest that they add a sentence to the effect that if a lease has been signed and tenant improvements begun pursuant to that lease, the city may approve extension to one year if tenant improvements require such an extension. If they have a lease and have them doing physical construction on that lease, the city could extend that from six months to 12 months. Chairperson Ferguson suggested that a one year extension could be granted if staff deems it reasonably warranted. Mr. Drell concurred. Mr. Lennon said that was fine. Chairperson Ferguson said he would like to make a motion including that change to the development agreement and including condition of approval #18 requiring the construction of a bridge. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would second the motion. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Chairperson Ferguson would consider amending the motion to add to that a notice to City Council that condition #18 has financial implications that should be considered. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he didn't want to entertain that amendment only because he felt it was obvious. He felt Mr. Ortega would bring it up. Commissioner Jonathan stated that should the council read the minutes, he would be objecting to the motion and the reason he was doing so was because he felt that condition of approval number 18 was superfluous in terms of the requirement of a bridge from the Planning Commission standpoint. He thought that the financial implications of condition 18 were irrelevant to the commission's function. He did, however, endorse the precise plan which has the bridge as part of their requirement. Mr. Drell said that the commission could direct staff in its presentation before the city council to emphasize that point. He was sure the point would be made at the meeting. Chairperson Ferguson stated that at least two council members were with him at meetings with the President of the Homeowners Association when the bridge was discussed at length and its relative necessity. Chairperson Ferguson called for a vote. Action: Moved by Chairperson Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no). 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 '�• Moved by Chairperson Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1826, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 97-3, C/Z 97-9, PP 97-9, amendment to the development agreement, and certification of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no). Mr. Ortega stated that he wanted to point out that condition 18 had been added since the last time commission considered it. That was why they were not complaining at the last hearing. Commissioner Jonathan agreed and said he heard him the first time and heard that very clearly. The condition was not present on July 15. Chairperson Ferguson said there weren't any conditions in July. Mr. Drell said that was exactly it. There were no conditions before the commission then. Mr. Smith clarified that it wasn't in the record of August 5 either. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that he used the wrong date. Mr. Drell explained that it was inadvertently left out. It wasn't in the commission's packet on August 5. Chairperson Ferguson noted that this was going in the minutes to the City Council and the Planning Commission did not approve a project without the requirement for a bridge. The developer was told all along that the bridge was required and now through inadvertence, and he was not suggesting misfeasance, it changed the calculus based on his involvement and he thought that the council deserved to review it in the fullest context possible and thanked Mr. Drell for his clarification. B. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CASE NO. CUP 91-8 - SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CHURCH. Mr. Drell stated that he had a meeting with Mr. Richards, Mr. Philips (the administrator), and Mr. Rick Baylor (the youth minister). They went over all of the alleged transgressions. Staff emphasized to the church that they should at the very least behave like a responsible residential neighbor and try to anticipate what activities would be disturbing, not wait until the complaint to occur. Certain items they agreed to address like the shininess of the roof and had agreed before to put something on it. Relative to the noise and supervision issues, Mr. Richards agreed to give them one month of trial to see if their behavior would improve. The church agreed to place a security guard until 2:00 a.m. on the parking lot to try and better police the activities in the parking lot even after events were over. Mr. Drell said he suggested that relative to the volume of the music, they should all sit in Mr. Richards' backyard and adjust the volume until they arrived at an acceptable level. Staff would report back in another month to see how well it went. If the complaints continue, a full investigation would be conducted and they could initiate the hearing process. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Richards would be keeping a daily diary. Mr. Drell said that was correct. He also noted that the church expected to break ground on the new facility on the first of September. They were aiming for July `r. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 and the permit required them to break ground by September. Chairperson Ferguson asked if their plans were timely submitted. Mr. Drell thought their plans were all through the County; he thought it was a financial problem. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Richards was mollified. Mr. Drell said he agreed, based on staff's admonishment to the church, to be a little more sensitive and anticipate what sort of things would be disturbing if they were living in the residential area and their noisy teenage child had a rock band. There were certain things you would tell your child to do before the neighbors called. Chairperson Ferguson asked if they would be hearing back from Mr. Richards. Mr. Drell said he would hear back within 30 days and would report back to commission, either with a recommendation to initiate the process. Commissioner Beaty noted that there was a report in Mr. Richards' dialogue relating to comments by Mr. Smith and asked for clarification that Mr. Smith was received with some indignance by members of the church. Mr. Smith said he didn't know whether they were indignant orXr not, but someone had to be the tla guy and it was him. Commissioner Beaty said that it was reported by Mr. Richards that Mr. Smith said that he was received with indignance. Mr. Smith felt it was a matter of interpretation. The church had located the air conditioners in some other location and when he reviewed the matter, he observed the location of the air conditioners were of some concern to the commission and he had not been party to that discussion previously so he said they would have to be relocated or the job would be stopped until the public hearing process could be revisited to relocate them. The construction people didn't really see the concern. Later on, perhaps the same day, Mr. Wes Oliphant came in and they chatted and the pads were relocated. They would have preferred not to relocate them. He wasn't sure what the advantage was or if it was more cost effective to relocate them, but they had agreed to locate them in a certain area when it went through the public hearing. Commissioner Beaty thought there was more to the indignance than that one incident with the air conditioner. Mr. Smith said that his only other contact with them was Mr. Richards had called relative to the shininess of the roof. He went out to the site and ran into the administrator out there and they walked the site and looked at it and agreed that it was quite shiny and he agreed to take care of it. That was back in June. Commissioner Beaty thanked Mr. Smith for his clarification. Chairperson Ferguson stated that the recommended action on this item was continuance and asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing consideration of CUP 91-8 compliance to September 16, 1997 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. C. CONSIDERATION OF STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT FOR A VACANT PARCEL OF LAND GENERALLY ABUTTED BY DELLA ROBIA LANE AND CROSBY LANE WITHIN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. i 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 taw Mr. Drell explained that this was a piece of ground that was previously dedicated to the City as right of way. The City Engineer is saying that it is of no value to the City any longer and if it was given to the City for nothing, the owners could get it back for nothing. He said it would have been a cul-de-sac. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, determining, by minute motion, that the subject right-of-way vacation is in conformity with the City's General Plan. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - None. B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (August 19, 1997) Chairperson Ferguson noted that the committee met today and the committee heard a very creative, far reaching and expansive plans to put in a train emanating from a tunnel underneath the terminal at Ontario Airport terminating through a tunnel in Desert Willow and coming up the Union Pacific tracks. The committee thanked him for his idea and informed him that the idea of train service from Ontario was a significant concern to not only Palm Desert, but every other city in that the Riverside County Transportation Commission would be a good venue for him to look at. Mr. Farzaneh went to the White House and the Federal Department of Transportation in Washington. They also reviewed some change work orders. He said that they approved a bid for the south course and it went to Park West. Commissioner Beaty had raised some questions about vendors of Park West who have not been paid in a timely fashion. They held up their qualifications as a bidder at some point to make sure they got paid and he was told that everyone was paid. Park West was the prevailing bidder. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the issue of prevailing rates and the effect of being a Charter city. Chairperson Ferguson said there was some discussion about holding off the bidding on the south course until after the November election. The problem with it is that our charter would not change the law that governs the Redevelopment Agency. They were still required under public health and safety code to use prevailing wage. Mr. Drell said we are also contractually obligated to Intrawest to produce a course in a certain time frame and we could incur significant penalties. Chairperson Ferguson said that even if we waited it wouldn't save us any money. The City would save money on its public works contracts that don't involve federal money because of the Davis Bacon Act. He informed commission that the cost for the golf course was $9,030,840.48. The committee asked them to prepare two documents stating why they need another course, basically going through the development agreement with Intrawest and outlining the financial benefits to the City of the Intrawest agreements so that people would understand why the course is being built v.. 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 and they would also address the charter city issue and why they shouldn't .. wait for the vote. He said they decided to landscape the northern portion of the project, the southern curb of Frank Sinatra, hold off on the median landscape at this point until they put development on the north side of the road and they got a conceptual design for a 30,000 square foot clubhouse which will be the subject of some discussion. The 40 page proposal included banquet rooms, dining, restaurant facilities, etc. He felt it was a good sized clubhouse. Commissioner Jonathan asked who would own and operate the clubhouse. Chairperson Ferguson said the city would own it and Kemper would operate it. The cost would be over $5 million. C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - None. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - None. E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - None. F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - None. Chairperson Ferguson stated that one item that came up at Desert Willow today on zoning ordinance review and that had to do with hotel room sizes. Mr. Drell said that it was something they could discuss at their next meeting. They got a presentation that was kind of a sneak preview of the { proposed Courtyard/Residence Inn project. While the Residence Inn units would be substantially larger than the City's requirement which is 375 •� square feet per room and would be 400, 500 and 600 square feet. The Courtyard side of the project was predominately between 300 and 350 square feet. It would require an amendment to our code for hotels, either raising it or allowing them to average the room sizes. The average would probably be substantially larger than the 375. That would be something that had to go through the process. It would go to Zoning Ordinance Review Committee for a recommendation on that issue. Xl. COMMENTS Mr. Drell introduced Ms. Ruth Ann Moore, the City's new Business Support Manager. He noted that the city separated the code enforcement function from the business license function. Code was now under the Building Department. The emphasis of the Business Support Center was going to be assisting business and using the contact which we normally have through business license and her job will be to promote retail, tourism and economy and assist people as a liaison and going out and recruiting businesses. The commission welcomed Ms. Moore. 5 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1997 r.. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, Secretary A TES IA ES ER USON, Chairperson Pa m Desert PI ng Commission 35 John R. Bayardo 44-500 San Pascual St. Palm Desert, CA 92260 August 13, 1997 Mayor of the City of Palm Desert City Counsel of the City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Road Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: Prospective Zone change (southeast corner of De Anza and San Pascual) Dear Mayor Kelley and City Counsel Members: I would like to voice my concern regarding a proposal to change the zoning ordinance on the vacant lot located on the southeast corner of De Anza and San Pascual in Palm Desert. I have been a resident of Palm Desert since 1989 and I believe that the change will lower property value in the area and possibly bring a tainted element should the development go to low-income housing. The area was established as a single family residential area (which is why I purchased and developed land here). It was never intended to house duplexes or other types of multi-family structures. I am against any change in the zoning ordinance. Ver,, truly yours, JOHN R. BAYARDO receive any notice of the impending BUILDING HORIZON PLAN. This plan calls for the division of one single lot at the corner of DeAnza at San Pasqual, into two parcels with Low Income Houses. These home owners refused one other simular plan afew years ago. NAME ADDRESS yy- SSS 5�� �AsevAc� ➢.n, 5M, j�a-o�... �Q- to Co -73 0 W4aq-.aW Ytl W W 71-3 e� B!L L(E .L. PouL,o ` �- - s WLos v- AIA 2ee�e,/d� ,4wa./� �4.� late 9! ✓r P�i4�✓�•e/y �i( l7e�o� �✓la�t.,iq — Masi we2� sc�� L¢ �e� �o�edar �rk,�-�io.v�.�:) 4" /9-- AUC-10-97 SUN 06301 PM QU LTD UNIFORMS, CA 619 346 9794 P, O1 This petition has been signed by Concerned Home Owneraq that did not receive any notice of the impending BUILDING HORIZON PLAN. This plan calls for the division of one single lot at the corner of DeAnza at San Pasqual, into two parcels with Low Income Houass . These home owners refused one other simular plan &few years ago. NAM9 ADDRESS 64�4.L L �3-Ate- �-