Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1007 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 7, 1997 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ferguson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan 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: Steve Smith Phil Joy Bob Hargreaves Mark Greenwood Martin Alvarez Tonya Monroe t" IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 16, 1997 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the September 16, 1997 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Smith summarized pertinent September 25, 1997 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PM 24255 - RANDALL W. CROFT/EDC CONSULTANTS, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a one year time extension for a parcel map permitting 100 commercial/industrial lots on 173 acres located southerly of Dinah Shore Drive extended, easterly of Monterey Avenue, and southwesterly of Southern Pacific Railroad t"M right-of-way. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 Action: �►� It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. PM 27136 - RONALD F. CORN AND LINDA G. CORN, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map splitting an existing 18,354 square foot lot into two 9,177 square foot lots located on the east side of McLachlin Circle in Avondale Country Club. Mr. Smith explained that a letter was received withdrawing the application and staff's recommendation was that commission receive and file the letter. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion receive and file the letter of withdrawal without prejudice. Motion carried 5-0. B. Continued Case Nos. PP 97-8, VAR 97-1, DA 97-3 - O. MICHAEL HOMME, Applicant Request for approval of a Precise Plan of Design for a 12,500 square foot, single story professional office/medical building, Development Agreement permitting up to 2,000 square feet of limited general commercial uses and parking reduction, and Setback Variance for said building on the north side of Fred Waring Drive between Monterey Avenue and Acacia Drive. Mr. Smith explained that this matter has been continued off and on for several months. At the last meeting Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval for the precise plan and a portion of the variance, but the resolution before the commission did not provide for the development agreement action. He explained that the applicant sought up to 2,000 square feet of commercial use in the Office Professional zone. The resolution would approve the precise plan of design and some setback variances to allow for the carports and buildings to be located closer to Fred Waring Drive and Acacia Drive. Mr. Smith stated that the conditions of approval required that the applicant bring the two buildings together. There was originally 20 feet of separation between the two buildings and staff was suggesting that it be narrowed to 16 feet to reduce the amount of setback variance necessary. He indicated that the shape of the building lent itself to the variance. Mr. Smith noted that Mr. Homme was 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 present to speak to commission, but staff's recommendation was that Planning Commission adopt its resolution approving the precise plan and variance. Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Smith if the exceptional hardship findings required to justify the variance was due to the configuration of the property coupled with the Public Works improvement requirements. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that this item was a continued open public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. MIKE HOMME, 46-300 Desert Lily in Palm Desert, noted that he read the resolution and his application to have a certain portion of the building as commercial was not being considered. He indicated that one condition of approval under Public Works (No. 3) applied to the full public improvements of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring. He stated that he has had several conversations with staff about that and this property was part of the original assessment district that did the improvements that are now there and he was hoping to have that condition removed. He also requested the removal of the Building Department condition that applied to undergrounding of utilities. He explained that there is an existing undergrounding development that is in effect for the undergrounding of the utilities on the property and he was hoping that wouldn't get confused and it was still a part of the original agreement. He stated that there was an agreement between the existing lessee of the property, Mr. Oliphant, and himself to participate in undergrounding the utilities along Monterey Avenue and that i... agreement carried a certain amount of money being paid at time of issuance of a building permit and he wanted to make sure that was what this condition meant and didn't mean something in addition to that. Chairperson Ferguson asked staff to comment. Mr. Smith said he was not familiar with the information contained in the agreement Mr. Homme was referring to. The Building Department was aware of the agreement when they required this condition, so he trusted they were not in conflict. Chairperson Ferguson said that wasn't very reassuring for Mr. Homme. Commissioner Beaty noted that condition number 8 under Public Works also referred to undergrounding. Mr. Homme said he thought it had all been taken care of, but he wanted to cover the bases and didn't want to be surprised later and there would be a record of it at this public meeting. Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Smith if it would be fair to say that if there is a preexisting requirement for undergrounding utilities that it supersede any additional requirements that may be imposed after the fact. Mr. Smith stated that he was not familiar with the terms of the agreement as to whether they supersede Ordinance Section 56.130 and 110 which the Building Department cited in their condition. Chairperson Ferguson asked who prepared the staff taw 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 report. Mr. Smith said he did. Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Homme if he had raised this concern with Mr. Smith. Mr. Homme replied no and said this was really his first time mentioning it. He thought it was probably taken care of in the agreement because it went back to the City Council recently and the City Council has sent the Edison Company a check to do this work and he thought it was taken care of, but he wanted to mention it in case it came up later. Chairperson Ferguson said he was a little embarrassed because Mr. Homme was seeking clarification and staff couldn't give it to him. Mr. Homme said it was unfortunate that he just mentioned it for the first time right now and didn't want to cast dispersion anywhere. The other thing was that at the last Planning Commission meeting where they were talking about the commercial property and the fact that there have been conversations with the City Council as to the fact that this property is very hard to develop and a lot of the requirements that have been placed on the property made it very difficult to do and this plan minimized the impact of the property since it was single story and low square footage. At the last meeting there were several comments made asking if there was some way to recommend to the City Council that they take a really good look at those things and not just pass it off. With this being approved the way it is now, the commercial was not a part of the project and it took away all the financial benefits that augmented some of those costs. His conversations with staff had been very helpful and there had been a lot of conversation about trying to make this property work. He didn't know if there was some way to reinforce that with the City Council, but he would appreciate any ideas the commission might have that would help with his further pursuit of this application. Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Homme was requesting that the entire Public Works Condition No. 3 be stricken. Mr. Homme replied yes. He said he didn't know if he really expected it to be done, but he would like to ask for that. The property has paid for that improvement. That improvement and the property taken away from this property is what has really caused this problem since the beginning of time. The property paid for the improvements there and for the drainage fees that are already there. The fact that Monterey needs a right turn lane and acceleration lane to make that intersection better didn't really benefit that property. It almost made it undevelopable and when adding the cost of it to the development of this property, it was impossible and no one would ever be able to develop it. He didn't know if it was in the power of the Planning Commission to do it, but he had no problem giving the property to the City to make those improvements when the City decides to improve it, set the building back for that and it was kind of a regional improvement ,s I 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 rather than an improvement for this property that has already born the cost .+ one time. Commissioner Beaty said that might go hand in hand with Mr. Homme's third request for the City to pick up these types of costs. Mr. Homme concurred and thanked the commission. Chairperson Ferguson said that as he read Condition No. 3, it called for three things: a six-foot sidewalk on Acacia, an eight-foot sidewalk on Fred Waring and a right-hand turn pocket on Monterey and asked if Mr. Homme objected to all three. He asked if the sidewalk would benefit his property. Mr. Homme said he had no problem with the sidewalk but was hoping that the City Council, because he was probably going to be a position where he would have to appeal any decision made by Planning Commission, would take that into account and be able to help with some of those improvements to offset the fact that without any commercial use as part of this project there was no way to make up some of these additional costs that would burden the two small office buildings. The sidewalk would be helpful and his main focus was the widening of the street, the drainage structure and signalization, moving all the utilities and literally hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of work to be done. Chairperson Ferguson said that in terms of the right-hand turn pocket, if the Commission was to relieve him of that obligation but still state that they would like to have a sidewalk on Acacia and Fred Waring, if that would pose an insurmountable problem for him. Mr. Homme said that would not be insurmountable, but the other would be. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Beaty stated that he would like to see this project go forward, but he was not sure he felt comfortable striking No. 3 from the conditions and wanted to encourage the City to consider helping out with that if at all possible. He was in favor of the project and in favor of the City assisting in whatever manner it could to make the project work. Commissioner Jonathan agreed. He felt that to have this particular site develop in the way the applicant presented it would be a benefit to the city. He was in favor of the project as presented. He would not be in favor of deleting the requirements referred to by the applicant, but at the same time he was very cognizant of the unique financial requirements that are involved and he too would encourage the City Council to work with the applicant to see if there is a way that is developmentally and financially feasible to get this property built out. r.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 There was precedent in that regard. In particular, the development of the northeast corner of Portola and Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Oliphant, Mr. Gregory and the City worked together to care of some very difficult problems that also involved some utility companies and so forth. There was precedence for that kind of cooperation and he hoped the Council would consider this an appropriate application to do the same. Chairperson Ferguson noted that Mr. Homme's request was to delete Condition No. 3 under Public Works and No. 1 under Department of Building and Safety and to somehow give a nod to City Council to consider some light commercial use. He thought that the commission considered the last item at the last meeting and the Planning Commission said no, they didn't feel that commercial was appropriate there. Item No. 1 which he mentioned second appeared to be taken care of. If in fact there is 'a preexisting undergrounding agreement, if it accomplished the same goals, that issue would go away. Regarding Condition No. 3 under Public Works, he was not at all in favor of relieving the developer of the obligation of installing sidewalks. When the residents of Acacia were before commission on the Muro application, they were very concerned about its use and ease of use and he would like to see sidewalks around the development and believed it was an obligation of the developer. He recalled that the right-hand turn pocket was necessitated because Mr. Muro had such an intensive use that even after it had been conditioned on his application, the City went one step further and decided to put in a solid block wall completely shutting off Acacia Drive. He also remembered Mr. Oliphant standing before the commission asking why he needed a right-hand turn pocket going into a block wall and Chairperson Ferguson agreed with him. He was not sure that Mr. Homme's use was any different from any other use on the other three corners, none of which have been conditioned with a right-hand turn pocket and he was more than willing to let this go to the Council because that was where it appeared to be headed anyway, but since the Council wanted to hear the Commission's opinion, his was that he didn't think the developer aught to put in a right-hand turn pocket there, so he would be in favor of the application as conditioned with the exception of the right-hand turn pocket on Public Works Condition No. 3. Commissioner Campbell agreed. She also felt the sidewalks were needed, but if a right-hand turn pocket was necessary, the Council through the Redevelopment Agency should help Mr. Homme to take care of that piece of property. She was in favor of the project. Commissioner Fernandez stated that he also was in favor of the project and felt that the City Council should work with the project and he agreed with Chairperson Ferguson and the other commissioners as far as having sidewalks and the right turn there. He felt the City Council should take and look at that and work with the applicant and wanted to see something developed. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he would make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the sole modification being the deletion of the right-hand turn pocket requirement under Public Works Condition No. 3 and 6 se MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 leaving intact the sidewalk requirement and assuming for clarification that there is an existing undergrounding agreement and if there was not, Mr. Homme was free to come back and revisit that issue if it was necessary. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification because he heard the Chair speaking to Condition No. 3 in that regard, but thought that the other four commissioners were in favor of leaving Condition 3 as is but suggesting to Council that they participate financially or at least review that possibility. Commissioner Campbell said that was what she was talking about. That Mr. Homme would be liable for the sidewalks but if the Council required the right- hand turn lane, that the Council should provide funds for that. Commissioner Beaty stated that he thought that Commissioner Ferguson has given them a way to encourage the City to look at the funding possibilities and he would go along with that amendment. Chairperson Ferguson said his motion didn't require Mr. Homme to put in a right- hand turn pocket. If the City Council wanted to require it, they could do so and Mr. Homme could discuss that with them. Commissioner Jonathan said that made sense but he just wanted to clarify that he would not be Ming in favor only because it was his understanding of the history of this site that the right-hand turn lane is necessary. It was necessary now even without development on that corner and he therefore agreed with the rr. applicant that the nexus wasn't there to require the applicant to bear the full cost, but that was an issue that he felt was monetary and for the Council to consider. The application itself regardless of the financial impacts he felt should result in a right-hand turn lane and now was the appropriate time as that corner develops, but he didn't think the nexus was there for the applicant to bear the cost. The reason he would be voting no was because he felt the application approved by the Commission should contain a right-hand turn lane and that was the only reason he would be voting no. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that the only place they part company is when the city needed right-hand turn pockets on Portola the City bought the lots and they put in the right-hand turn pockets. The thing making Mr. Homme's lot virtually undevelopable was the fact that the City was acquiring the property to put in a right-hand turn pocket as well as other public improvements and it has sat vacant and he felt the City has enough money, and have done it other places in the city, where if the City wants a right-hand turn pocket, the City can bear the cost of it. He was suggesting giving it to the Council so that if they wanted it, they would have to put it back in and Commissioner Jonathan was saying that if they didn't want it, they could take it out and that was the difference in their approach. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 Action: It was moved by Chairperson Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no). It was moved by Chairperson Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1830 approving PP 97-8 and VAR 97-1 , subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no). C. Continued Case No. CUP 94-2 Amendment #1 - MICHAEL CASTELLI, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to an existing conditional use permit to allow a 620 square foot ground floor expansion of Castelli's Andreinos plus 200 square foot loft at 73-098 Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Smith explained that on September 16 staff reported to Commission that the long term availability of the leased parking that this restaurant relied on appeared to be in jeopardy. On October 2 a letter was received from Mr. Demetriou, one of the owners of the parking currently under agreement. Also, on the 16th Mr. Phil Witte voiced a series of concerns. All this information was passed along to Mr. Castelli and he has been working on all of these issues and in talking to him before the meeting, he did have a considerable amount of information to relay to the commission. Mr. Smith clarified that the request at this point was for the approval of the expansion at the rear of the building, however, the existing restaurant operation is through Conditional Use Permit 94-2 and Conditional Use Permit 89-14. Both of those existing conditional use permits required that the applicant lease a total of at least 24 parking spaces. It was critical that Mr. Castelli obtain additional leased parking and it appeared he has done so or will do so in very short order. That would take care of that problem. The second part of the areas of concern was the request for the expansion. The floor area of the expansion plus the four parking spaces that would be lost due to the expansion necessitated that the applicant provide a total of 40 parking spaces. He needed to provide for the leasehold of at least 40 spaces if he wished to proceed with the current application. Since Commission last saw the matter staff revised Condition No. 7 requiring a longer term on the parking or alternatively that he develop parking on his own. In talking with the applicant before the meeting it sounded like he would be doing that in fairly short order. Mr. Smith noted that Condition No. 11 was added where if the applicant didn't proceed with parking on his own that he would participate in the parking authority if and when it proceeds. Staff recommended approval of the request in that the conditions wouldn't let the applicant proceed until the parking was in place, but what was really critical was that he come up with a lease for at least 24 parking spaces so that the existing restaurant operation was still consistent and in conformance with the conditions of the previous conditional use permits. He asked for any questions. 8 ...... ... .. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Smith if he was saying that he anticipated no r.. parking problems with the existing CUP and no parking problems with the proposed expansion based on the new agreements. Mr. Smith agreed and explained that while the agreements might not be in place tonight, before the applicant could proceed with the expansion they would be in place. They had to provide written documentation confirming that they have the needed spaces. Commissioner Campbell asked if the Commission could approve the expansion based on the new conditions. Mr. Smith said it was possible and was staff's recommendation, but he urged the commission to hear from Mr. Castelli. Chairperson Ferguson indicated the public hearing was open and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MICHAEL CASTELLI, 44-575 Santa Margarita in Palm Desert, stated that he was in the process right now, had an agreement with First Bank and their lawyer was looking over the agreement, and hopefully by the end of this week he would have that agreement here. He said he did have the agreement wrote up, but it just had to be signed and dated. He was told to take it to the City to see what they said and First Bank just wanted their lawyer to look it over because they just wrote it today. He didn't see any problem at all. Commissioner Jonathan said he would like to address the first matter, which was the noncompliance with the existing conditional use permit. Mr. Castelli was required to lease 24 parking spaces and asked if Mr. Castelli was currently leasing 24 spaces. Mr. Castelli said right now he was leasing 14. Commissioner Jonathan asked what was going on with the rest. Mr. Castelli said that was what he was working on right now with the lease agreement with First Bank. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the agreement with First Bank addressed the deficiency with the existing conditional use permit, not the expansion. Mr. Castelli said there was enough parking for the expansion too. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that it was one agreement for everything and that would get the applicant a total of 40 leased spaces. Mr. Castelli agreed. Commissioner Jonathan asked when Mr. Castelli anticipated having this agreement. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 Mr. Castelli said he would have the agreement by this weekend. r Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Castelli had any comment about the letter from Gateway Plaza. He noted that it appeared that Mr. Castelli has been in noncompliance for two years. Mr. Castelli said that he and Jim (Mr. Demetriou) had an agreement and he was paying him and Mr. Demetriou was coming into the restaurant and commenting that no cars were parking in his lot, so why pay him. So Mr. Castelli didn't pay him and then this came up. Mr. Castelli said he offered him the back pay of a year and a half plus a year up front and he said no, Mr. Castelli should go somewhere else to get parking. Instead of paying him $3,000 for parking, Mr. Castelli was going to go to the bank who didn't want any payment. Commissioner Jonathan said that he thought the point being made was that Mr. Castelli was familiar with the requirements of the conditional use permit and according to the letter given to the Commission, Mr. Castelli has been in violation of the conditional use permit since December of 1995. Mr. Castelli said he didn't know he was in violation of it because he didn't think that Jim (Mr. Demetriou) cared about the money since he wasn't using his parking area. Commissioner Jonathan stated that the conditional use permit required that Mr. Castelli have a lease agreement in place for the additional spaces. He asked if Mr. Castelli had such an agreement in place. Mr. Castelli indicated there was an agreement in place. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Castelli thought the agreement was in place even though he was not making payments. Mr. Castelli concurred. He thought it was just a neighborly thing between him and Mr. Demetriou since he was coming into the restaurant for dinner. Chairperson Ferguson clarified that Mr. Castelli was saying that if Mr. Castelli used Mr. Demetriou's space he expected to be paid and if Mr. Castelli didn't, he didn't and it wasn't until Mr. Castelli saw this letter that he realized there was a problem and when Mr. Demetriou was offered the back pay he still said no. Mr. Castelli concurred. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that if Mr. Demetriou was present he could further address the issue. Irrespective of two private parties and their contract, he asked if Mr. Castelli understood that whatever his arrangements were with the bank or parking arrangements, if there were payments to be made and they E 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 were not made and the City heard about it, the conditional use permit would come up for a revocation hearing. Mr. Castelli said he understood that now. Chairperson Ferguson stated that at the last hearing Mr. Witte expressed some concerns with the use, particularly with noise in the after business hours. He asked if Mr. Castelli had spoken with Mr. Witte. Mr. Castelli said he went to Mr. Witte's house to try and find out what the problem was so that it could be solved. He wasn't aware of it and it wasn't presented to him personally and he told the Wittes that if there was a problem that they could call him personally so that he could find out what was going on. He noted that he wasn't at the last meeting, but thought that the problem had to do with the trash being taken out late at night. Chairperson Ferguson concurred and said that it had to do with bottles and noise. Mr. Castelli said that since it was a restaurant it was going to be a little noisy and he was sorry, but they close between 10:00 p.m. and 1 1 :00 p.m. and it was not like the Red Barn that closes at 2:00 a.m. The only other thing he said he could do was to insulate the trash can with something so that it wouldn't make any noise or take it out earlier in the night, but all the trash seemed to be when they closed. Chairperson Ferguson said that if he understood Mr. Witte clearly, it was the bottles in particular. Mr. Castelli said that he recycles the bottles and he could have the employees hold off on moving the bottles until the next morning. Chairperson Ferguson said that parking on Mr. Witte's property was also an issue and asked if that had been resolved. There were oil drippings and grease on his property. Mr. Castelli said he would take care of that. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that he wanted Mr. Castelli to be aware that the Commission had heard from Mr. Witte at the last meeting and deferred comment on this until the Commission could talk to Mr. Castelli and hear from Mr. Witte and was a concern of his. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this proposal. MR. PHILLIP C. WITTE, 44-870 San Antonio Circle in Palm Desert, stated that they did clean up behind the property there and it was pretty much okay now. The main concern at this point was the bottles, not the trash. rr.r 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 3 The parking was a problem also. He didn't mention it at the last meeting, but he has had to repair his building because people have gone too far and hit it and ruined the drywall inside and caused that sort of damage. He was intrigued about the parking too because they have been parking on his property all this time and asked if they take four more spaces away when they expand the building, where those people would park because it is the employees that park back there. The other thing was that since this is a conditional use permit, if there are problems later on once this is approved, he asked how he could come and ask about it to see if it could be corrected. Chairperson Ferguson said that he should just send a letter to the Commission saying that the restaurant is not complying with the conditions of their CUP, the City staff would investigate it and if they find merit, there would be another hearing and they would ask the applicant why the CUP shouldn't be revoked. Mr. Witte said that was fine and clarified that since he talked to Mr. Castelli's manager a couple of years ago it has been much better and there haven't been many oil changes, but it bothered him that they park there and they pull very close to the building and if they miss a brake or if it was-very sandy, they punch his building, which they have done before. Again, he didn't mention it last time because he figured that was part of what happened since he lives next to a commercial use, but on the other side he didn't want it to happen anymore. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he agreed with Mr. Witte. He has driven back .ail through that alley and wondered where the parking would be and called the Planning staff to find out about the satellite requirement and made sure there were valets to take it there and it might very well be that they would require that Mr. Castelli's employees park in the same area and leave that alley open. Mr. Witte said that would be nice. Chairperson Ferguson noted that Mr. Castelli nodded his head indicating that was fine. That might eliminate that problem once and for all. Mr. Witte noted that trash wasn't a problem, it was just the bottles. It was his suggestion that maybe after 10:00 p.m. they could just sit them next to the trash cans and the first thing in the morning they could dump them. Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was disturbed by what he heard tonight. In his opinion they have an applicant who has just been in complete and intentional disregard of the conditions that were placed on the development of the property for almost two years. They have a situation where they have a restaurant operating under a conditional use permit and they have been hearing 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 without argument that it is a noisy operation and one where employees were �r creating property damage to surrounding residents and it was a less than desirable situation. His inclination at this point was to continue the matter and give the applicant a chance to remedy everything that the Commission heard about tonight and if that is not done, then his inclination would be to revoke the conditional use permit due to noncompliance. Commissioner Beaty indicated that he was in total agreement with Commissioner Jonathan. He wasn't hearing from the applicant what he was reading in the Commission's packet and from what he has heard from some of the neighbors. He was having a little difficulty believing that there was an attempt made to make direct contact with the Wittes. He stated that he would support a continuance and further review. Chairperson Ferguson said that he was trying to judge the application based on what Mr. Castelli was proposing to do and didn't realize that this was a CUP revocation hearing. He also thought that he could only go on the evidence presented in front of him tonight, in the record, or at the last meeting. He hasn't had private conversations with the neighbors. He did commend Mr. Witte because it seemed that he has been a good neighbor and made a lot of efforts. Chairperson Ferguson noted from the minutes that Mr. Witte has never called a building inspector or complained and he also knew that the contracting party from the lease arrangement has never contacted the City and said that he has never been paid and he wasn't present tonight to say that the contract was breached. Chairperson Ferguson said that he didn't want to go back and revisit those issues because he was here to look forward and not looking backward and if they were here to review a CUP revocation, it would be different. Notwithstanding that, he favored Commissioner Jonathan's approach. He didn't feel there was any prejudice to the applicant by letting him solidify his agreement with First Bank and perhaps acquire the northern parcel. He would also like to see some conditions added when it does come back with respect to the parking requirement and the bottles. That would give Mr. Castelli the opportunity to make good on what he was saying he would do, it would give Mr. Witte the assurance that Mr. Castelli was going to do it and he thought that at least two of the commissioners would be happier than they are tonight. Commissioner Campbell stated that she concurred with all the comments made and was in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Fernandez also agreed and felt that the open communication was there and needed to be followed through on and should come back to the Commission. Commissioner Jonathan stated that since the applicant indicated that the agreement with the bank was eminent (i.e., this weekend) he would make a motion to continue the matter to October 21 and at the same time he requested staff to report on compliance with the conditional use permit. � 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing CUP 94-2 Amendment #1 to October 21, 1997 by minute motion. Chairperson Ferguson asked the City Attorney if it was possible for the public hearing to be reopened at this point to allow the public hearing to be continued. Mr. Hargreaves stated that he could reopen it. Before the vote was taken Chairperson Ferguson reopened the public hearing and indicated that it should be continued no sooner than October 21 and perhaps later. He asked for any further discussion on the motion. There was none and he called for a vote. Motion carried 5-0 to continue the matter to October 21 . D. Case No. Vesting TT 28655 - LOWE RESERVE CORPORATION, Applicant Request for approval of a vesting tentative map for 42 lots on 55 acres east of Portola Avenue, south of The Living Desert (currently TT 27710). Mr. Joy informed Commission that this was the exact same map Planning Commission and City Council approved four years ago as part of a agreement development. Lot lines, pad elevations, etc., were exactly the same. That approval was approximately four years ago and new financing was found for the project and the financing company requested that they get back to the same ten- year period to build the project and that was why the application was being filed right now, to get back to that same ten-year period. This particular map wasn't very large, but the entire project was quite large and would result in a whole new country club project. The only concerns staff received on the map were outlined in a letter which was delivered to the Commission from Desert Resort Management representing Ironwood Country Club Association adjacent to this tract. He stated that he would go through the points of the letter before the Commission. Item 1 stated that they want to be reassured that all of the mitigation measures from the EIR that was adopted are still within the project and to clarify the matter a little bit, Mr. Joy noted that Community Development Condition No. 11 stated that all conditions from the development agreement shall be applicable to this map also. To clarify that matter he recommended that the language be added that all conditions within the development agreement, including the mitigation measures of the adopted EIR and mitigation monitoring program, also be included. Number 1 b and c related to the last amended map which the applicant submitted to the City. He said that there was some confusion because he faxed the staff report to Mr. Recupero of the Association but he failed to include the conditions of approval. There were conditions of approval under Community Development Department Nos. 5 and 10 which addressed these issues. The last paragraph on No. 1 reflected those two conditions and the mitigation monitoring program which he previously added and would add to Condition No. 11 . Item 2 referred to the PM 10 standards and Mr. Joy indicated that this was originally raised in the Indian Wells application and similar applications were being made through the City of Indian Wells right now and the issue came up in that city that there were new PM 10 standards for the sod 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 region and all of the cities were required to adhere to that policy. Staff simply .. stated under Public Works Condition No. 17 that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 12.12 Fugitive Dust Control which implements the PM10 standards. The proposed wording by Desert Resort Management was exactly what their 12.12 or PM10 standards were implemented. Mr. Joy felt this was similar to what the City of Palm Desert requires also to control the dust. After grading but prior to construction they wanted to make sure that the soil was kept in place and not blowing all over. Mr. Joy stated that in the rest of the conditions, No. 3, Desert Resort Management was alluding to another temporary fence while they were tearing down an existing chain link fence and oleander fence which Ironwood constructed. He deferred these items to the applicant. Number 4 related to transponders on the entrance gate. In No. 5 the Association was requesting that Palm Desert wait on their decision until the Indian Wells City Council approved their vesting map prior to Palm Desert taking an action. Mr. Joy said that someone needed to make the first move on this request and the Indian Wells Planning Commission already recommended approval to their City Council. In Indian Wells tentative maps automatically went to City Council for approval and in Palm Desert tentative maps are final at Planning Commission level unless appealed to City Council. Indian Wells' Planning Commission has already voted on the matter and provided input which Palm Desert would implement into this project as much as possible and it was mainly the PM 10 standards, which were on a regional basis. With the added amendment to Condition No. 11 , staff felt that the project was a worthwhile project for Palm Desert and that the recommended zoning of one unit per acre would be a very good land use compared to the seven units per acre at Ironwood Country Club and Public Institutional zoning at Living Desert. Staff recommended approval of the project. Chairperson Ferguson asked what percentage of The Reserve project was within the Palm Desert city limits as opposed to what would be in Indian Wells. Commissioner Beaty said it was about ten percent. Mr. Joy said that acreage wise there would be 55 acres in Palm Desert and 580 acres in Indian Wells. Chairperson Ferguson asked if any of the 55 acres involved hillside development. Mr. Joy replied no. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the developer also had independent obligations to AQMD for PM10 compliance. The City didn't create the requirement, it was a preexisting law which the City incorporated into our conditions. Mr. Joy stated that was correct. Chairperson Ferguson asked if AQMD was located here at city hall to monitor PM10 compliance for developers. Mr. Joy concurred. Chairperson Ferguson said he was in agreement with making the applicant comply with all existing laws, but he didn't know why the Commission would want to take on the PM10 mantel independently of AQMD when they were here in our own building. He thought it was a harmless condition but noted that it wasn't as if they were conferring the obligation onto the developer since it already exists no matter what the Commission did and the enforcement was there also. Mr. Joy concurred. Chairperson Ferguson asked about the errant ball study. He said it seemed to him that when Mr. Lennon first came to the Commission about two years ago he commissioned an errant ball study through Glen McGihon. Chairperson Ferguson said that he lived in %no 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 Ironwood Country Club at that time and he remembered trying to come up with a scenario whereby an errant golf ball would hit Ironwood property. He asked if that was the study which complied with the condition and what happened to that study. Mr. Joy said the study was completed and staff still listed it as a condition because it was one before. What actually happened was the matter went on to City Council, Mr. McGihon did complete a study, and the study was approved by the City Council. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the letter appeared to say that a study was never approved and asked if that was an inaccurate statement. Mr. Joy said that it was inaccurate. Chairperson Ferguson commented that there was a development agreement with all of these conditions previously that lasted effectively for seven years forward and he understood that the applicant was asking for the same exact agreement, just being burdened with those conditions for three additional years, for a ten year period. Mr. Joy agreed and explained that with a vesting map process with time extensions and a few other technicalities it could run on for ten years from today's date. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the applicant was asking for anything they didn't already have, other than additional time. Mr. Joy replied no. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the commission first and then any other interested parties. He requested that all public speakers give their name, spell it and give their address for the record. MR. PHILIP SMITH, 80-703 Avenue 49 in Indio, stated that he was present on behalf of Lowe Reserve Corporation, the applicant. He agreed with the staff report and thought that Chairperson Ferguson already clarified some of the issues. He felt that the most important thing to reiterate was that they weren't proposing anything different that wasn't previously proposed and approved and they were incorporating in this approval all the same conditions that applied to each of the prior approvals, specifically including the issues that were raised by the Ironwood Homeowners Association in the past. He indicated that he wanted to comment on a couple of matters in the letter Commission received. He said he also received it tonight and thought that Mr. Joy adequately dealt with Item 1 as clarified by Chairperson Ferguson. He informed Commission that an errant ball study was commissioned and was completed and signed off by the Planning staff. The golf course bylaws were drafted in accordance with the conditions and were submitted to the City Attorney, Dave Erwin, who approved them and were in the file. On the second page of the letter as it related to the PM 10 standards, he said they recognize their obligation to comply with the PM 10 standards and had no problem with the added condition and believed that was the only new condition that has been added to their prior approvals. He said that they have no problems with that and expected to comply. He thought the suggested language in light of that was unnecessary and he suggested that it not be included. In paragraph 3, and also related to paragraph 4, they have a private agreement which was discussed in some detail a year and a half ago when they were before the Commission and that was an agreement with the Ironwood Homeowners Association No. 5 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 that deals with a number of matters. One of them had to do with their �.. obligation to remove and reinstall the existing fence. They intended to do that during their construction process and the plan would be to do that so that there was as short a period of time as possible when no fence exists. Obviously there would be a short period when the old fence was down and the new fence went up, but he felt they would be able to minimize any security issue through the timing of the construction activity. That obligation exists pursuant to the private agreement that they have with that association. Number 4 was in the same category in that they have an obligation in that agreement to cooperate with the Association as it relates to security matters of mutual concern. While they talked about the entrance gate, Mr. Smith believed that what they were really addressing was the shared entrance which was not the main entrance, but was the secondary entrance on Portola that currently provides access and in the future would provide access to Ironwood's golf course maintenance building and would also provide secondary emergency and maintenance access and they have agreed with the Association to cooperate in implementing reasonable security measures at that location and that was something they would do cooperatively with them. They have not worked out all of those details and he didn't think they needed to do that tonight, but they recognized their obligation and agreement with them. Mr. Smith said that he agreed with Mr. Joy's comments on Item 5 and could see no reason to delay the Palm Desert Planning Commission's action. He asked if there were any questions. Chairperson Ferguson said that he agreed with Mr. Smith on Item No. 5, but he understood the issues in Indian Wells related to hillside development and Palm Desert didn't have any hillsides that would be developed. He asked if that was Mr. Smith's understanding. Mr. Smith replied that the only new issue in Indian Wells, and he thought it was mentioned in the staff report, had to do with height limitations. In their original approvals in Indian Wells they had a number of different development planning areas and in some of those planning areas they had permission to build two story homes up to 30 feet in height. In going back to Indian Wells for the vesting tentative map they asked Lowe to give up those approvals and they have basically agreed to do that and thought they had reached a compromise that would get back a one story height limitation. That had never been an issue in Palm Desert. There were no effected hillsides and they have an 18-foot height limitation. That was the only new issue in Indian Wells. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that he thought Mr. Smith said that on Item 2 he didn't have any problems with the PM 10 standards, but he didn't like the language. Mr. Smith clarified that he was suggesting that the language that was proposed, and he wasn't sure if it tracked exactly the language from the tir. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 1 Indian Wells conditions, but whether it did or not he could see no reason to add these new conditions in the Palm Desert approvals in addition to the new condition that Mr. Joy mentioned which has them agreeing to comply with the Palm Desert PM 10 ordinance. That was the condition he felt was appropriate and he had no problem with that. Chairperson Ferguson said that above and beyond AQMD conditions and the City's condition, Mr. smith was wondering why they would go ahead and add an Indian Wells condition. Mr. Smith suggested that it was not necessary and requested that those conditions not be added. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Campbell stated that it seemed to just be an extension of time and the same conditions would pertain and she would be in favor of the approval without the added conditions as requested by Mr. Smith. Chairperson Ferguson agreed and noted that everything seemed the same and the applicant would just be burdened for three more years with these obligations. Commissioner Beaty said he would move for approval. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was per Commissioner Campbell's recommendation to not include the Indian Wells PM10 language. Commissioner Beaty felt the additional language was unnecessary and as stated by Mr. Smith, the PM10 issue had already been taken care of by law. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1831 , approving Vesting TT 28655, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. TPM 28596 - SCHMID INVESTMENTS L.P./BERNARD DEBONNE, Applicants Request for approval of a tentative parcel map subdividing the existing 11 .3 +/- acre site on the north side of Highway 111 , 1320 feet east of Deep Canyon Road into 16 numbered parcels and one lettered parcel (private street). 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 Mr. Smith explained that the property in question was the 11 acres immediately �.. east of Embassy Suites right at the city boundary with the city of Indian Wells located to the east of this site. The property is zoned Office Professional. He noted that Planning Commission dealt with the zone change on this property in 1989 and Council considered the matter for first reading in 1989 and then completed the second reading several years later. The issue was obtaining an access to a signalized intersection. The applicant accomplished that through the City of Indian Wells and the Village Court Street which extends around to a signal to the east. The parcel map was for 16 lots and a private street would extend northerly off of Highway 111 and then at the fourth lot north of the highway there was a street connecting it to the street in Indian Wells which goes through the signalized intersection. The O.P. standards called for minimum lot sizes of 15,000 and the proposed lot sizes ranged from 19,602 to 39,000+ . The lot width requirement was 70 feet and these lots would range from 126-261 feet. The lot depth was required to be 140 feet and these would range from 147 to 152. Findings for approval of the map were outlined in the staff report and could be made. Mr. Smith stated that the project was reviewed for compliance with CEQA and staff was recommending that Commission certify a Negative Declaration' of Environmental Impact. Staff recommended approval of the tentative map subject to conditions and noted that the next public hearing item on the agenda was for the first building on this tract. He wouldn't bring it up at this point but wanted to mention it. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked for the applicant to address the Commission. He noted that he had a request from Mr. Carl Miller to address the Commission also. MR. RICHARD SCHMID, 15101 Red Hill Avenue in Tustin, stated that they have not only read the conditions identified by Planning, Public Works and the Fire Marshal, but also had an opportunity to meet with Mike McConnell, the Fire Marshal, this morning and with Mr. Dick Folkers this afternoon. He didn't think that they really had any problem with the conditions, but there were some technicalities that he believed could be worked out with both of those staffs regarding the cul-de-sac radius which Mr. McConnell agreed could have a 151-foot radius without a secondary access and to change his conditions. The other issue was with respect to the grading plan which he believed was worked out with the City. A third issue was regarding a new condition which he understood was largely due to a traffic problem that exists at Lucky's Market down the street with respect to left turn accesses into and out of the site and now there was a condition to construct a raised median as a barrier to prevent that from happening on their site. He said he had no problem working with the City in trying to resolve that issue in a satisfactory manner. He didn't anticipate it would be resolved prior to them wanting both occupancy of the site and the completion of the improvements depending on the construction schedule for the median. Another issue that he thought might come up which he thought was resolved was the building that they were proposing to build, Paine Webber, was on a fast track condition and unfortunately their tentative map didn't �..► 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 get heard as quickly as they hoped and he thought there might be a situation where they would be asking for a building permit prior to public improvements being either bonded for or constructed. He believed that they had that resolved with the Building Department. He said they were instrumental in allowing access to their property to the east and they were the property owners in Indian Wells that negotiated with Mr. Debonne to provide the access to a signalized intersection. They were in fact developing this property with Mr. Debonne, who wasn't at the meeting. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. CARL MILLER, 44-439 Cannes Court in Palm Desert, stated that he had some questions and wasn't aware until tonight that the proposed street was a private street rather than a dedicated street and asked if that was correct. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mr. Miller said he was concerned about that and.asked if there would be a wall on the north boundary of the property. Mr. Smith pointed out that there was already a wall there at Hidden Palms. Mr. Miller said that was their wall and he didn't know what the elevation of any future buildings would be and if the developer was to raise the elevation their wall might end up being three feet high by the time a building was constructed. Mr. Smith asked how high Mr. Miller would like the wall to be. Mr. Miller replied that like it was presently, probably five feet. He said that was a concern because they have had less than good relations with Mr. Schmid on their common wall between Hidden Palms and his property in Indian Wells. Mr. Schmid promised the Indian Wells City Council that he would comply and he hasn't and he has promised Hidden Palms that by the end of last year it would be done and it still wasn't. He didn't take anything Mr. Schmid said about walls or agreements that aren't tied down really well. Mr. Miller stated that his main concern is drainage. He said he got out a ladder and looked at the 1300 feet of sand and a few date palms which now percolates water into the soil and asked the Commission to visualize that covered with asphalt and buildings and during a flash flood that water had to go somewhere and it was headed right for his kitchen. He said that he was 25 feet from Mr. Schmid's wall. He was very concerned that the drainage on this property was proper, especially when he heard it was a private street. He would much rather base his faith in the City draining the property than on a private street. He said he talked to Mr. Greenwood this afternoon. Mr. Greenwood told him that he didn't think the drainage plan 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 would be at the meeting tonight, but Mr. Greenwood told him it was adequate. Several years ago when the drain was put through on the subject property and through their property also he was told that it was to drain Highway 1 1 1 and the property to the south of Highway 1 1 1 . He said they had to realize that if it couldn't go down Cook Street or Deep Canyon, it had to go somewhere, so they put in a big drain. He wanted to be sure that this property had enough drains into that drain to get rid of the water so it wouldn't go into his kitchen. Chairperson Ferguson informed Mr. Miller that Condition No. 3 under Department of Public Works required a storm drain retention area to be constructed upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer, reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works such that it would be designed to withstand a 100-year storm level and would include provisions for overflow conditions including easements as might be necessary. Mr. Miller said that was okay, but on tonight's television in Highland and San Bernardino today mud was running through homes and some engineer messed up in their calculations. He was asking the Planning Commission to please, before this property was covered in asphalt, to take a good look at it and be sure that the drainage is adequate. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he thought that was what this requirement would do. Mr. Miller said he mentioned coming back to the City when he got mud in his kitchen and Mr. Greenwood told him that the City was not responsible. They would have to look to the developer and Mr. Miller was concerned that the developer might be gone. It was a very serious situation to him and he would feel much better knowing that he has enough man holes and drains, whatever it takes. Chairperson Ferguson suggested taking one issue at a time and asked Mr. Greenwood if he was correct in his analysis of Condition No. 3 under the Department of Public Works. Mr. Greenwood said yes, they would require a drainage study by a civil engineer, who hopefully specialized in drainage, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. To his knowledge there has never been any development with such a study where they have had the problem after completion of the improvements. Mr. Miller suggested that they look at the property. Indian Wells has new housing that put up a wall that comes back to within two feet of their wall. That whole 11 acres drains to that corner. In a flash flood it has two feet to get through there, otherwise it would knock his wall down and he would have problems. That was why he was here. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he understood Mr. Miller's concerns, but explained that the developer was legally responsible for water retention on this %Mv 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 3 : property, the City is requiring a water retention plan submitted by a civil engineer before he can put up asphalt and he wasn't sure what else could be done at this stage until the Commission receives a plan from him that the City could review. Mr. Miller asked if there was any chance this could be made into a dedicated street. Chairperson Ferguson said he wasn't sure what difference there would be if the developer did the improvements or the City did the improvements, as long as the City controls what improvements are made, he didn't think it would really make a difference. Mr. Miller stated that he was told by one of the staff that chances were it would be ten years before the developer got to the back part of the property and while that might be true, development might happen next year. Chairperson Ferguson said that today the Commission was reviewing an application for a tentative map adjusting the lot lines. The Commission was not approving any development and apparently the Commission was reviewing the first building as the next public hearing, but right now they were just approving the subdivision into 16 lots of Office Professional use. Mr. Miller noted that there were no provisions for a wall or any problem with a change in elevation. He said that Mr. Schmid changed the land elevation on this property in Indian Wells and he would like some assurance that the land would be at the same elevation or that the wall would be increased if it isn't. Chairperson Ferguson said he understood Mr. Miller's concern, but the Commission was trying to subdivide lots at this point, not put improvements on the land. Mr. Miller stated that he understood that the Commission was approving the subdivision map and he himself has subdivided property and he understood that they had to provide for the utilities and this was the time to talk about those things. Chairperson Ferguson said he heard Mr. Miller's concern and agreed with it, but at this point it might be premature, but he would defer this to Mr. Smith on the perimeter wall issue. Mr. Smith stated that the map before the Commission didn't have elevations on it. He thought that it was in order for Commission to add a condition, Condition No. 8 to the Department of Community Development, that if necessary, the wall height along the north limit of this property be maintained at six feet above whatever the grade becomes along that section of the property. The tentative map would result in the street being installed and the cul-de-sac to that point. Typically the City would look at the wall if and when staff received an office proposal on the site. That was when the finished grading would be done, but there would definitely be preliminary grading done before the 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 street goes in, so he thought it was quite reasonable that the Commission bring .. forth an extra condition to assure Mr. Miller that the six-foot net height of their wall was maintained. Mr. Smith explained that it might result in an eight-foot wall on Mr. Miller's side. He didn't know that and noted that there might be residents at Hidden Palms who wouldn't care to look at an eight-foot wall in the backyard. He felt they would also need something from the Hidden Palms Homeowners Association saying that they want the wall height increased if it is at all necessary, which they didn't know for a fact at this point. Chairperson Ferguson understood that interior perimeter walls could be between five and six feet. The wall's aspect of it he didn't believe was before the Commission. Condition No. 8 under the Department of Public Works referred to proposed pad elevations shown on the tentative map, so he assumed that there were pad elevations there. He didn't think the commission was minimizing Mr. Miller's concerns, it was just a little premature and if Mr. Miller would feel more comfortable with the commission spelling out as a condition the height of the perimeter wall they could do that, noting Mr. Smith's point that the elevation was measured from the grade of the developer, which could be a huge difference. Mr. Miller said that with dust control they received cooperation from Mr. Schmid but the problem with dust control was that they started at 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. before the superintendents get there and that was when the dust was created, before the phone calls could be made to the city engineer. He thought it would be helpful if it was worded that it happens before the superintendents get there because the dust was terrible when the big machines got going and they were living 20 feet from some of them. He thanked the Commission. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to speak regarding the tentative map. There was no one and he closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan felt that the only outstanding issue seemed to be the wall and he thought it was already addressed in the conditions of approval and asked if Mr. Smith was suggesting a change to them in the form of an addition for Condition No. 8. Mr. Smith said he was suggesting the addition of Condition No. 8 to the Department of Community Development to the effect that in order to assure a net height of six feet from the Hidden Palms side, if that was what the Hidden Palms Homeowners Association wanted, that Planning Commission could add that condition subject to the Hidden Palms HOA approval. Otherwise it would be left the way it is with the existing wall at between five and six feet high. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would have no problem with the addition of that condition and everything else about the application was acceptable. Chairperson Ferguson concurred. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approval. �... 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1832, approving CUP 97-12, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. F. Case No. PP 97-11 - BERNARD DEBONNE FOR PAINE WEBBER, Applicant Request for approval of a Precise Plan of Design to allow construction of a 10,842 square foot office building and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto for Parcel 1 , Parcel Map 28596, located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1 , 1320 feet east of Deep Canyon Road. Mr. Smith noted that the colored site plan and elevations were on display. He explained that the building elevations had received preliminary approval from the Architectural Review Commission and if Commission thought they looked similar to the buildings in Indian Wells to the east, they were. He indicated that this was a 10,842 square foot office building on a 39,000 square foot pad. He stated that the parking being provided satisfied the ordinance requirements. The Architectural Review Commission asked the applicant to widen the planter along the west side of the private drive entering from Highway 111 . The tentative map that Commission just approved had been revised to accommodate that and created a seven-foot planter which should be adequate to support the trees which are proposed for that area. Development standards for the O.P. zone have been met for setbacks, height and parking. Mr. Smith stated that the Commission would be reviewing the future buildings on the various pads on the various parcels in this tract map as they come forward. Staff felt the findings could be made to support the approval of the precise plan. Staff recommended certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approval of the Precise Plan of Design, subject to conditions. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MATT JOHNSON, 73-147 Bursera Way in Palm Desert, stated that he was here as the project manager for the Paine Webber building. He said that the architect was also present and indicated that they have worked out with staff the various conditions as related to the building and in compliance with the tentative map approval and concurred with staff's recommendation for approval. He said he was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Ferguson asked for Commission comments or action. s 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 Action: v It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1833, approving PP 97-1 1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (September 18, 1997) Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was not notified of the meeting and v that had happened before. He was available September 18 to attend and was sorry to have missed it. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the Redevelopment Agency was responsible for providing agendas. Staff said yes. Chairperson Ferguson requested that staff let Maria Hunt know and asked if there was an alternate member for the committee. Commissioner Campbell said she was the alternate but she had the El Paseo Business Association meeting the same day and when she asked Mr. Shillcock about the meeting he said not to worry about attending the meeting because everything was going to be continued. That was why she didn't attend. Chairperson Ferguson noted that Commissioner Jonathan still needed to be notified. Commissioner Jonathan assured the Commission that if he received a notice, he would attend the meetings. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (October 1 , 1997) Chairperson Ferguson stated that the meeting dealt with the creation of an Office Professional Park Zone for the large office building park type complexes. He thought that the most discussed aspect of that was 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 exceeding height limitations from existing Municipal Code on a stepped-to- back basis and he believed that they ended up with every foot higher than code and one foot to the setback was added. Mr. Smith confirmed that it was a one to one but that might be altered after further study. He said that the next meeting would be a week from Thursday. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that there were a couple of other items on the agenda regarding the sign ordinance and CZORC taking a relook at the R-1 zone with all of its suggestive language being changed to be much stronger. Commissioner Campbell asked about signs/awnings (i.e., Countess Mara) and Chairperson Ferguson indicated that portion of the ordinance was being deferred to the El Paseo Business Association for comments and asked if it was going to be on the next CZORC agenda. Mr. Smith indicated that if Commissioner Campbell was at the meeting they would discuss it. XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Chairperson Ferguson, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Aj2�-) PHILIP DRELL, ecretar-y— A qTEST- JA ES AWOERUSON, Chairperson Pal Deseg Commission /tm 4 26