Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0505 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - MAY 5, 1998 r, 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * �. � .� � �. � .� .� * � * * * ,� � .� � .� * .� � �. .� �. � * * * * * � � * .� * � � � * .� � � I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Beaty led in the pledge of allegiance. Itt. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Paul Beaty George Fernandez Cindy Finerty „�, Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan Staff Present: Phil Drell Martin Alvarez Bob Hargreaves Mark Greenwood Steve Smith Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the April 21 , 1998 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the April 21, 1998 minutes. Carried 4-0. V• SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION • Mr. Drell summarized pertinent April 23 and 29, 1998 City Council items. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. r.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 ..r VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 97-37 - CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments between lots 21 through 25 and lots 27 through 32 of Tract No. 24254 located on Cabana Court within the Sonata development. � -� .. B. Case No. PMW 97-38 - CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments between lots 1 through 4 of Tract No. 24254 located on Terraza Drive within the Sonata development. C. Case No. PMW 98-4 - CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to alfow lot line adjustments for lots 8, 9 and 10 of Tract No. 24254-2 located �.r on Terraza Drive within the Sonata development. D. Case No. PMW 98-5 - CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments for lots 12 through 16 and lots 18 through 23 of Tract No. 24254-2 located on Baranda Court within the Sonata development. E. Case No. PMW 98-8 - OASIS, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver adjusting existing lot lines to conform to revised development plan for property located on Edessa Street and Saladin Drive, also known as APN's 634- 210-006 through 011 and 018 through 022 within Oasis Country Club. .r� 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 �..► F. Case Nos. PP 95-3 and PM 28196 - LORI A. MOSS/RIVERSIDE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Applicant Request for approval of a first one-year time extension for a precise plan of design and parcel map to allow construction of a 135,600 square foot retail center at the northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive. G. Case No. TT 26553 - JOHN C. MITCHELL, III/AVONDALE COUNTRY CLUB, Applicant Request for approval of a third one-year time extension for TT 26553, a 20-lot single family subdivision located on the northwest end of Avondale Country Club, south of Frank Sinatra Drive. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, �� approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he/she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Continued Case No. CUP 91-9 Amendment - OLIPHANT & LIZZA, Applicants Request for approval of an amendment to an existing restaurant and valet parking Conditional Use Permif adding 52 valet parking spaces within existing commercial parking lots totaling 106 valet parking spaces to allow a 1 ,000 square foot expansion to an existing 6,000 square foot restaurant at the northeast corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Portola Avenue. �.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMiSSION MAY 5, 1998 � Chairperson Campbell noted that the applicant was requesting a continuance to June 2, 1998. She indicated that the public hearing was open and asked for a staff report. Mr. Drell indicated that since the public hearing was open, anyone who wished to should be allowed to speak and staff's recommendation was a continuance to June 2, 1998. �:;.;. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to� speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. AL HERTZ, owner of Dash Golf Cars, 70-050 Highway 11 1 , asked if staff was still recommending approval. Mr. Drell replied yes, staff was still recommending approval. There were negotiations going on to try and resolve some of the conflicts and expand the amount of available parking which would address a lot of problems. The goal was to physically make more parking available to the use and there were negotiations between some of the interested parties that might accomplish '� that goal. Mr. Hertz asked if Mr. Drell was talking about additional parking for customers or additional parking for staff. Mr. Drell said either way, for customers or staff and making more available for customers would free up more space for staff. Mr. Hertz stated that at 3:30 p.m. for the last month they have had 12 public places filled by their staff along the front of his building and in front of Ace Hardware. All of the parking places that were shown as city parking for valet were also full with their staff. He felt they needed to find a place to park their own people. Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and asked the commission for a motion to continue the matter to June 2, 1998. � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 �.. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing CUP 91-1 Amendment to June 2, 1998 by minute motion. Carried 4-0. B. Continued Case Nos. GPA 98-2, C/Z 98-2 and PM 28780 - MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Commercial-Industrial; a Zone Change from PR-5 (Planned Residential) to PCl2) (District Commercial Center) and a Parcel Map to separate the proposed commercial parcel from the residential portion for property located at the northwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was open and asked for a staff report. ... Mr. Smith stated that the applicant submitted a letter dated May 1 , 1998, � asking that the cases relating to the general plan amendment and change of zone be tabled. They were also asking that the commission approve Parcel Map 28780. He indicated a copy of the parcel map was on display. Staff recommended approval of the staff report and indicated that if commission chose to approve it, the commission would divide up the existing 81-acre parcel into the 17-acre piece and the remainder piece to the west which has an approved tentative map on it for some 296 single family lots. This piece was supposed to become a remainder piece when that map recorded. That map had not been recorded, so at this point the applicant was requesting approval of the parcel map. Mr. Smith indicated that a draft resolution with necessary findings for approval of the parcel map was included in the staff report and recommended approval. Commissioner Beaty asked if there was any ad'vantage to acting on the parcel map right now. He would rather address all�the issues at the same time unless there was a reason to do it tonight. He also asked if there were some disadvantages. If the commission approved the proposed map tonight, they might come back and request another change. Mr. Smith said they might very well come back at some point in the future, but this would allow them to sell :� one parcel or the other in its present zoning. Mr. Drell stated that by approval 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNtNG COMMtSSION MAY 5, 1998 ' 3 � of the previous residential tentative map, they have already given them permission to create this parcel. It was just that under the tentative map approved, they would have to do all the bonding, etc., with the entire property to get a final on that residential tract. He felt the decision had already been made that these would be two separate parcels and this allowed them to move ahead with one or the other. Chairperson Campbell asked if the applicant wauld like to address the commission. � MR. 60B MAINIERO, Mainiero, Smith and Associates at 777 E. Tahquitz McCallum Way in Palm .Springs, stated that he was representing the property owners, Westworld Properties and the David Freedman Company. He explained that with the tentative parcel map and ultimately the fina! parcel map, they were irying to separate the previously approved subdivision of 296 lots to be able to sell that parcel off. Right now it could not be sold separately. If the proposed map was approved, they would follow up with a final parcel map which ; would create a parcel for the subdivision and a separate 20-acre parcel. � Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Chairperson Campbell asked staff if the public hearing for GPA 98-2 and C/Z 98-2 should be left open. Mr. Drell advised that the public hearing be closed since staff's recommendation was to table the matter. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, tabling Case Nos. GPA 98-2 and C/Z 98-2 by minute motion. Carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings for approval of PM 28780 as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. . It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1858, approving PM 28780, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. ; � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 ... C. Case No. CUP 98-6 - LOUIS LASSABATERE/CITY LITES, Applicant Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a two foot by four foot outdoor clothing display of women's apparel in front of the City Lites business at 42-335 Washington Street #J. Mr. Drell explained that a small clothing store located in a supermarket shopping center would like to put out a clothingr rack as a display. In that it is outside of the strictly defined interior of the store, it is an outdoor display and, therefore, it was not permitted unless a conditional use permit is provided. Initially the city used to forbid outdoor displays entirely but that changed when the city went through the process to allow the College of the Desert Street Fair, which is all outdoor displays and sales. It was approved with a conditional use permit and the city changed the code to allow any commercial business to apply for permission through a conditional use to engage in outdoor display or sales. He didn't recall any requests that had been processed or approved other than the College of the Desert Street Fair. The situation before the commission is a condition which he felt was a retail design ... problem which exists throughout the city. It had existed at one time on EI Paseo, but it exists especially in shopping centers that have large stores that have good visibility, then there are small intermediate shops typically dominated by monolithic architecture and very large, heavy overhangs which tended to obscure the shop windows from the parking lot and more so since these shops were usually a good distance from the street and anywhere else. Architecturally they seemed to fall somewhere in between indoors and outdoors. The condition used to exist on EI Paseo at what is now the EI Paseo Collection North. After the continued failure of small shops, the property owner tore the facades off the buildings so that store fronts were right at the sidewalk and there was visibility. Historically shops dominated by heaving canopy overhangs fail. They have an especially hard time in these shopping centers where there is no pedestrian activity of any significance. He felt that the customer's attention needed to be caught from the parking lot or as they leave a larger store. City Lites made applicatibn for a conditional use permit to get permission to display a rack. Staff was unsure exactly how to solve the problem. Mr. Drell noted that the Department of Community Development is also responsible for Business Support, staff acknowledged and understood it is a problem, and these shopping centers have a design which inherently is not all that positive or conducive to attracting people to these businesses. In order to differentiate, control and limit any precedent, which was staff's concern, w.. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 � � � � they could acknowledge that these semi-enclosed walkways are almost like an indoor space. The only thing they lack is a piece of glass. If a piece of glass was put between the columns, it would be inside space and they could display whatever they wanted. The direction staff wanted to discuss with the commission was to figure out a way to define these semi-enclosed spaces as different from inside or outside and find a way to allow some sort of additional display of both signage and/or merchandise to allow these people to attract some attention to allow their business to su�vi.ve. He said that if the commission determined that in this situation that a c�onditional use permit is warranted because of the architecture, then commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution. If the commission had other ideas, staff wanted to hear them. Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. LOUIS LASSABATERE informed commission that his wife owns the business and he was before commission on her behalf. He said that � thus far, he has had the pleasure of ineeting three very delightful � people: Daisy Garcia, the Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Drell. In the very beginning he felt there was a misnomer attached to what he inadvertently called a citation. He said that Ms. Garcia told him that the rack was visual pollution and that they were conducting business on a pub(ic sidewalk. A discount rack might be visual pollution to some people, but he would let that go for the moment. The fact that Ms. Garcia said that they were conducting business on a public sidewalk was entirely erroneous. He said he was sure the ladies present at the Commission meeting from the time they were little girls shopping went with their mothers and a discount rack was a visual approach to something that was extraordinary to that store, namely discounts. When they come to the end of a season, there were so many shoes they couldn't find a place for and they were discounted and moved out. He has a door that is open and they have an air-conditioned environment and he has a sign that says open and women still come by and asked if they're open because they miss that rack. It was almost historical and that rack goes back to the time when they were children and it was also an indication that the store is open for business. Assuming that there is an item that is the right size, etc., they would take it from the rack and enter into the store into his leasehold where � 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 r..► there is a dressing room and all business is conducted within the leasehold. They do not conduct any business on a public sidewalk. He thought this was one error at which the two gentlemen he mentioned couldn't come to an understanding on because the ordinance apparently reads against the situation now. He wanted the commission to thoroughly understand it. He said there was really no other way he could display the situation. He told commission that unless they could help him, it would bankrupt them. He saidthey.might find that difficult to believe and it was not that they sell that much from that rack, it was the fact that the rack tells people that the door is open and leads them to come in and buy other things. There was no bait and switch. It was just an indication that the store is open for business. Giving the commission an example of a comparable basis, he said that from March of this year to March of last year they were down about 59,500 and that was tough to make up, especially in this environment. When the snowbirds left, the business was dead and he was hoping that the commission would grant him some relief on an immediate basis so that they could at least stay in business. He thanked the commission for �,,,, their consideration. He also mentioned that he has from merchants, within shouting distance, eight positive testimonials to the effect that they enjoy the rack or don't object and look forward to seeing it there. He said he had it available for the commission's inspection if they wanted to see it. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Lassabatere was aware of the location of the pillars and the surrounding area before signing a lease. Mr. Lassabatere replied that if he knew then what he knows now, he never would have allowed his wife to enter this business venture, but since they were involved in it, he had to make the best of it and every day was a challenge. This was a challenge now and he hoped they could meet it in a win-win situation. . Chairperson Campbell noted that she is also in retail so she knew what he was talking about, but if he was allowed to do this everyone in Palm Desert would also request the same. Mr. Lassabatere agreed, but felt that in practicality there weren't that many people in this type of business with the combination that would �.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 � have these displays because some of the store fronts do not call for this. Others were in a position of keen observation and a pedestrian walkway. When this overhang that Mr. Drell so succinctly described and with automobiles parked there as you drive by you can very easily miss it. Chairperson Campbell noted that everyone else would like to have the racks out also for sale. Mr. Lassabatere said he was only representing himself so he couldn't speak for anyone else, but they needed the commission's help and would appreciate it. Commissioner Fernandez asked if the store was open seven days a week. Mr. Lassabatere replied that they were closed on Sunday. They were open from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. 3 Commissioner Fernandez asked for clarification that Mr. Lassabatere was only ..� requesting permission for one rack. Mr. Lassabatere concurred. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Finerty stated that while she sympathized with City Lites' dilemma, this action would be precedent setting and it was her personal opinion that clutter of a rack would cheapen a center and the city would run the risk of all businesses wanting racks and pretty soon centers throughout the city would look tacky. She was against the proposal. . Commissioner Fernandez said that he was in favor of the proposal. He said he was also a merchant and knew how tough it was and understood the troubles City Lites was having. He was in favor. Commissioner Beaty agreed with Commissioner Finerty. While he sympathized with Mr. Lassabatere and understood his problem, he didn't like the � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 +�.. appearance of this rack and didn't want to have this as a citywide problem. He was not in favor. Chairperson Campbell said that she also was not in favor of something like this. She could understand if the applicant wanted a special conditional use for holidays or specific days to do something like this, but not six days a week al) year. She was also opposed. Mr. Drell noted that the commission didn't have any resolutions before them, so the appropriate action would be to direct staff to prepare a resolution. He indicated that this might be something that could be taken up with the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee, but for better or worse the city is stuck with these spaces and he said that while clutter might be a problem, centers with a lot of vacant spaces and failed businesses were also a problem. Chairperson Campbell suggested perhaps the Architectural Review Commission should be told about this problem so that centers with this kind of architecture aren't approved in the future. Mr. Drelf noted that when the Desert Crossing �.,. shopping center came in they virtually eliminated almost all the small intermediary shops for that very reason. Their experience was that it was very tough for the little shops to survive when dominated by the larger stores. He said it was a problem they had to face and find a solution for and staff has tried to induce developers to tear off the big dominate canopies or create individual store fronts and do things to promote the success of small businesses. Unfortunately, it has been a battle with shopping center developers. He said that in the future, hopefully there wouldn't be any more centers like that built. Mr. Lassabatere requested a point of order to readdress the commission. Chairperson Campbell granted permission for Mr. Lassabatere to speak. Mr. Lassabatere said that since the original "charge" by Daisy Garcia, it was that they were conducting a business in a public sidewalk. He said he would like to think that if there are rules, regulations and ordinances they should affect everyone. Lucky's and Sav-On were doing this very thing. They were conducting business on a public sidewalk. People put a coin in a soft drink machine and the product is delivered. If people put a coin in a newspaper vending box, the product r.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 � � is delivered in front of them. People put a coin in the GTE telephone unit and the service is received. That is conducting business in a public sidewalk and he was wondering if all of these people have managed to slip by all of this or if they all have permits. He wondered why it was just for the smallest end of the business cycle. He said this would practically put them out of business and it would be very tough to tell his wife the commission's decision because all people do not put racks out. � _ Chairperson Campbell pointed out that they are not allowed to put racks out. Mr. Lassabatere said that if it was going to be allowed for him, then it should be for everyone, and everyone in that shopping center. He thought that all of them were in violation because he didn't conduct business, nor has he ever conducted business, on a public sidewalk, but there were others that do. He said he submitted photographs to Mr. Drell and wondered what happened and if that would be taken up at some time. � � Chairperson Campbell informed Mr. Lassabatere that he could apply for a conditional use for special sales. Mr. Lassabatere said he didn't know what to do now. He understood that the commission was voting against him, but now they were encouraging him to apply for a conditional use permit. Mr. Drel! clarified that Mr. Lassabatere could apply for a temporary use permit for special events, but that wasn't what Mr. Lassabatere wanted. Mr. Lassabatere asked what commission suggested that he do. He was confused. He asked what the meets and bounds were for the temporary use permit that Mr. Drell said he could apply for. . Mr. Drell said that he was allowed ten days per year and the applicant could pick out the days. Upon questioning by Commissioner Beaty, Mr. Drell indicated that commission needed to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial or approval. r � � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 � Mr. Drell asked commission to state the grounds for denial or reason for the decision. Commissioner Beaty felt an affirmative action would be encouraging more of this to happen and in doing so they would be encouraging a real code problem. He personally found it very visually offensive and didn't want to see it in the city. Action: !t was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for. adoption at the next meeting. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Fernandez voted no). Mr. Drell told the applicant that decisions of the commission were appealable to the City Council if filed within 15 days. Mr. Hargreaves clarified that this particular decision wouldn't be final until the resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission at the next meeting. D. Case Nos. TT 28701, PP/CUP 98-4 - MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP �.• RESORTS, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 13.64 acres into 12 timeshare parcels and a precise plan/conditional use permit to construct 102 timeshare units with related amenities for property within the Marriott Desert Springs Resort, specifically parcel located on the north side of Hovley Lane East between Portola Avenue and Cook Street. Mr. Alvarez explained that the property is within the Marriott Desert Springs Resort, specifically on the north side of Hovley Lane East between Portola and Cook Street. It fronted on Hovley Lane East and is bounded by the Marriott Golf Course on the remaining three sides. Zoning on the property is Planned Residential, four units per acre and has 13.64 acres. The tentative tract map proposal was to divide this parcel into 12 parcels which would be designed with nine timeshare structures with a total of 102 timeshare units. The site would also have a 10,000 square foot community facilities building. Mr. Alvarez explained that there would be an entrance gate approximately 160 feet north of Hovley Lane. The Fire Marshal would require a secondary emergency access which connects to the easterly existing timeshare facilities. This would ... be accomplished via a golf cart access which meanders through the golf 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 . � , � � course. The architectural design, fioor plan and height of the structure were identical to the existing timeshare units to the east. The commission had a folder which illustrated the elevations. As required by ordinance, the minimum project setback was 32 feet on Hovley and the remainder of the project was setback 25 feet where it would back onto the golf course. The Department of Public Works was requiring an acceleration/deceleration lane on Hovley Lane. The site would have 210 parking spaces which equaled a 2.0 spaces per unit ratio, which was greater than the existing 1,.8 which was approved at the existing timeshare facility to the east. For purposes of CEQA this site was previously assessed under Precise Plan 87-12 and the associated Negative Declaration prepared under that approval, as well as Resolution 1 199. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions. Commissioner Beaty informed commission than on the advice of counsel, there might be a slight chance of a conflict of interest so he would be abstaining from the next two items. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant � wished to address the commission. � MR. STEPHEN WITHERS, Vice President of Architecture and Design for Marriott Vacation Club International, felt that planning staff described the project very well. He said the proposal was part of their continuing resort at the Desert Springs Hotel site and these were identical to the buildings at Desert Springs Two. He said that Desert Springs One and Two were the two projects on the site and this was identical to the Two phase. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would move for approval. She felt that Marriott Timeshares were a class act. Commissioner Fernandez agreed and felt this was a great project. Chairperson Campbell concurred with � Commissioners Finerty and Fernandez and asked for a motion. � � � 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 � Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Beaty abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1859, approving TT 28701 and PP/CUP 98-4, subject to existing conditions. Car.ried 3-0-1 ICommissioner Beaty abstained). � _ E. Case Nos. PP/CUP 98-5, TT 28818 AND DA 98-1 - MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESC�RTS, INC., Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council of approval of a Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an 18-hole golf course, 1200 unit �.. timeshare resort and supporting amenities on 300± acres on the east side of Monterey Avenue between Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive. Chairperson Campbell noted that a continuance to June 2 was being requested. Mr. Drell clarified that staff was recommending the continuance to May 19, 1998. Mr. Smith indicated that copies of the tentative map, site plan and a colored site plan were on display. Mr. Smith explained that the proposal before the commission was threefold. For the precise plan and conditional use permit for the development itself, the code requires the approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission for timeshare and specifies that it must be associated with an 18-hole golf course of at least 6400 yards and that it be operated in conjunction with a resort hotel of at least 500 rooms. The precise plan referred to the layout, the design elements and there were some points where the project was still in the conceptual stage. As indicated, he explained that the property is between Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford on the east side of Monterey. Its main access would be from Monterey approximately 1430 feet south of Gerald Ford. The 300 acres did not include the 15-acre parcel on the ... corner of Gerald Ford and Monterey. That piece was zoned Planned 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 � � r � Commercial 2 and would be subject to some future proposal. The project would also have one access point on Gerald Ford Drive which would proceed southerly and that also had the maintenance facility located in that area at the northeast corner of the property. There was a third access point onto Frank Sinatra Drive westerly of the east property line. As indicated, the project is a Nick Faldo designed 18-hole golf course, 1200 timeshare units in a series of two, three and four story buildings. The applicant, while they haven't defined which lots the various buildings would be on and 'wi�h the area adjacent to the Kaufman and Broad property located easterly of the property off of Frank Sinatra, the applicant indicated that the units in that area and along Frank Sinatra Drive would be limited to two-stories. The three and four story units would be located toward the interior of the site. The project would be divided into four future villages, A, B, C and D. Village A would be at the northerly end, and B, C and D located southerly. Parking was indicated at a ratio of 1 .5 spaces per unit. Staff hadn't seen the actual layout of the parking or the design of the covered parking structures. Parking on the previous project was at 2.0 and the existing project at Marriott 1 .8. In the case of Intrawest, u Planning Commission and City Council approved between 1 .1 and 1 .5 parking � spaces. Those buildings had the ability to build out into between five and nine +.r� � units. That accounted for the range of parking provided. Mr. Smith stated that the traffic issue remained open. The Department of Public Works was requesting a traffic study in consultation with the City of Rancho Mirage. They are an adjacent responsible party in that the west side of Monterey is in the City of Rancho Mirage. Mr. Smith explained that at this time staff has not seen any elevations of the buildings, the sales center, the restaurant, the clubhouse, etc. The overall concept was shown to Architectural Review last Tuesday and they granted conceptual approval. They felt they could support the three and four story buildings given the extreme setbacks that would be afforded those buildings in that it was their understanding that they were going to be located toward the interior of the site. They were quite concerned that the units adjacent to the K & B development at the southeasterly corner of the property be limited to two-story structures. On page 5 of the staff report, the ordinance requirements were outlirred in chart form. The issue of the three and four story buildings put them.over the height limit, which is two stories and 24 feet. As with the hotel development for the Courtyard and Residence Inn, this was the same zone and same requirement and there is an exception process and the matter would be referred to the City Council for ' consideration on the height. He noted that the matter would also go to the Council in that the applicant was requesting a development agreement, a draft � 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 �... of which was included in the Commission's packet. Staff had not received comments from the City Attorney yet, but those would be coming shortly. That, along with some of the other issues, led staff to recommend the continuance. Tentative Tract 28818 was the mapping and Mr. Smith felt the findings could be made for that at the appropriate time. The remaining basic issues were the traffic study/consultation with the City of Rancho Mirage and the comments from the City Attorney on the development agreement. With those uncertainties, staff was recommending tha�the matter be continued. Staff's first recommendation was June 2 and depending on when this information could be received, he suggested that perhaps commission might consider continuing the case to May 19, 1998. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification on how this facility would operate in conjunction with the current Marriott on Country Club. Mr. Drell explained that it would basically have the same relationship with the Marriott Hotel as the existing timeshare does. They would have the same access to the Marriott facilities, the same priority tee times on the golf course, the same rights and privileges that the Villas do presentiy. It was supposed to be managed, ,�„ marketed, reservations taken and rented out by the same organization as if it was contiguous. Chairperson Campbell asked if it would have its own restaurant, clubhouse, etc. Mr. Drell concurred that it would have its own facilities as well, but it was his understanding that timeshare members and guests of the hotel would also have priority rights at this golf course. If they had 300 acres adjacent to their existing facility that is where this project would have gone. Mr. Smith informed Commission that staff asked the applicant to provide a statement defining that and also suggested that language be incorporated into the development agreement. Staff was cognizant of that concern. Commissioner Fernandez asked if this was continued if staff wanted it continued to May 19 or June 2. Mr. Drell indicated that he has been made aware of some time constraints that the applicant would talk about and staff would like to make every attempt to conclude the process by July: Therefore they would attempt to have everything by the 19th of May. . Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. r.. 17 MlNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 � � ; � MR. RONALD EASTMAN, 935 Farmhaven Drive in Rockville, Maryland, informed Commission that Mr. Withers would be discussing the project. He stated that he had the letter tonight for staff regarding how the properties would work together and he would give that to them before he left. He said that last evening they had a meeting with residents of the Kaufman and Broad development. Thirty-one people were kind enough to come and talk with them and look at the plans. They showed the residents some perspectives of wchat they believed were the view corridors and the setbacks and what the.views would look like from their homes. After looking at them today, the residents believed they had found some problems. He offered to fly balloons and build some scaffolding to demonstrate to them further just what the views would be over their walls for the homes that boarder the property. He noted that eight or nine were kind enough to come to the meeting tonight to see this and he appreciated that very much. He assured the Commission and the residents that it was their intention to be good neighbors and they would work diligently to try and resolve any differences. € �.rl MR. STEPHEN WITHERS, Vice President of Architecture and Design for Marriott Vacation Club International, stated that the project as described by Mr. Smith is located at Gerald Ford, Monterey and Frank Sinatra. He explained that they were proposing an entrance on Monterey and pointed out on the display boards the location of the resort center, the check-in area and beginnings of the golf course. He indicated that the sales office would be the first visual impact of the site. Coming in from there would be Village A, which would be the first phase and surrounded by golf. They were proposing a drive to come all the way through the project and come out at Frank Sinatra so that they would have the ability to turn to go back toward town. The other three villages were tucked back into the site. He showed Commission a rendering of the proposal along Monterey and he said they worked with Planning to have the open wall in combination with the closed wall so that the people along Monterey could experience the project golf vistas all the way to the Faldo Training Institute. He said they were talking about several thousand feet back. He showed the entrance where there would be a series of waterfalls. Both would work from the street and would also come back and feed the lake on the inside around the 9th ; hole. He said they produced a perspective along Frank Sinatra looking ° � 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 �.. back into the project at the golf area and the 7th and 8th greens would be visible from Frank Sinatra. He said they also did that at the Marriott Desert Springs Hotel with the open and closed wall sections. Mr. Withers also had a drawing showing Frank Sinatra Drive and the distance to the closest building to be perceived along Frank Sinatra. He noted that as described by Mr. Eastman last night, they put together a section through the Kaufman and Broad property. Until last night they were assuming that the main issue 'wpuld be privacy to the neighborhood's backyard and they were talking about planting and walls, etc., so that none of ihe buildings along there could be seen from their backyard. What they discovered last night was that they were not only concerned about privacy, but about their view of the mountains. � He said he was trying to illustrate that two-story residential zoning was a typical residential neighborhood and that was what they would be seeing. He showed the area where they clustered two buildings in relationship to the K & B homes. He proposed reworking those two buildings so that only ends of buildings were seen and they would work with them to make sure that platforms were built to show how the ends �,,,, would impact them. He said they were planning to be good neighbors so that they would not only have protection to their backyards, and while their views might be blocked by the ends of the buildings of the villages, the majority would be maintained. They would work with them on that. He showed the concept of the covered parking looking into the courtyards between the buildings. The architectural style would be similar to the Desert Springs Villas with the columns, stucco, the color banding and railings. He showed a picture showing the parking for the village structures to be located between the drive and buildings. He also had illustrations showing how the three story and four story buildings would look. He said that with the three story buildings, they banded buildings and put the articulation similar to Desert Springs Two and repeated that with the four story buildings. He said their proposal for the site plans was to have all the buildings two stories around the edge, then three stories, and where there were really long vistas they would have the four story buildings that would be 2,000 feet from the street to help offset some of the lower density along the perimeter. He said the buildings were very similar to Desert Springs Two where they have eight and 12 units and here they were just talking about six so there would be more green space between the buildings. He showed the location of the 18-hole golf course, the Faldo Training Center and ` 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 � �� .ri the maintenance building and where the site drops off they were talking about screening that from the road and they would keep the level the same as Gerald Ford to match the ground level. Each village would have its own pool and amenity center with a pool and a grill in a somewhat sculptured setting. At the resort center they would have a golf/grill restaurant, a golf pro shop at the starting point for all the golf, and a check-in area for all the timeshare guests. Chairperson Campbell asked what would happen on��the east parcel. Mr. Withers explained that was 15 acres of commercially zoned property. He said there were originally 20 acres but they used five acres for their entrance as well as a 17-acre parcel where Monterey makes a turn and they do not go to the intersection of Frank Sinatra and Monterey. That 17 acres was in Rancho Mirage. Commissioner Finerty asked for the height of the existing timeshare villas. , � T Mr. Withers said they were two stories and he thought the maximum � height was 30 feet. He also thought it was 18 feet to the underside of the eave and the roof sloped up at a 4/12 slope. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. GARY KORT, 37-799 Drexell Drive in Palm Desert within the Kaufman and Broad development, stated that after attending last night's meeting he went home to his backyard and studied the distance of 150 feet, 200 feet, 300 feet and 600 feet. He felt a two story timeshare building would definitely block out their view. Right now they have a gorgeous panoramic view of the entire mountains facing the Palm Springs Tram. They purchased their homes for this view and were ensured by their developer that there would be one level homes developed on that side at any given time and that was the reason he purchased his home facing that way. They never worried about their view being blocked. As Mr. Withers pointed out on his map about how the homes could be built closer to the wall and they were doing them a favor by building them farther away, Mr. Kort felt that they were really doing Mr. Withers a favor by not being closer to their wall � � 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 ... because they have barbeques in their backyards, make noise and had music playing which would be very disturbing to their customers. He didn't think it was beneficial to the homeowners that he moved it away, he felt it was just for their own development that they did it. Mr. Kort also felt they were losing their privacy. He said he has a backyard that is 40 feet deep by 100 feet wide and he sat in every spot of his backyard looking out at his neighbor's homes which have a 100-foot wide width and he could see the tops of rth�ir roofs five houses down and they were one story. Two stories would'�block the views of the mountains completely. He asked that Commission take into consideration what the homeowners would lose and why they purchased those homes to begin with. He said there was also a little concern about noise. Twenty feet behind their wall would be an access road from Frank Sinatra going out to Monterey. He felt there would be a lot of traffic going back and forth. That was another concern of theirs. He said it was not as important to him as his view and privacy, but it was a concern. He said he appreciated the Marriott staff wanting to work with them with building platforms and having balloons and he �,,, would like to see that happen at more than just at a 150-foot distance. He would like to see it for the three story buildings and the four story buildings. He didn't want to lose any view at all and if he could see that he was going to lose his view at 150 feet, he should lose it at 600 feet with the three stories, 1 ,000 feet with the four story and it was a real consideration of his to find out. He hoped that they would do this to help them. He suggested that they needed to go back at least 600 feet for a two-story building not to block their view and keep their privacy. MS. DENISE WELCH, 37-575 Drexell Drive in the Kaufman and Broad development, stated that she believed there were three issues dealing with the Marriott timeshare project. The first was the view. That was the reason they purchased their property and they would like to preserve that. She said she too went out to her backyard and she could see the Ritz Carlton from her backyard and she believed that a four story timeshare facility would block her view of those mountains. The second issue was security. The wall they would share between the Marriott and her property would be 20 feet away from an access road and this facility was supposedly going to have public access to it. They requested that the Marriott actually provide a clearance entrance that � 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 � } � , ui is gated so that would prevent any public access back in on that access road to prevent anyone from climbing over her wall and breaking into her property. The third issue was landscaping. She said they asked last night that the Marriott take into consideration their views by providing palm trees at the corner of their lots rather than putting them right in the middle of their lots to once again preserve their beautiful views. She hoped that the Commission would take all of those issues into consideration and thought that was the rea�on that everyone lived in the desert, to enjoy the beautiful view and sFie was sure they could work with the Marriott to come up with a positive proposal. MR. JACK PHINN, 37-659 Drexell Drive in the Kaufman and Broad tract, agreed with Mr. Kort and Ms. Welch on their issues on the view. Today he went into his backyard and took a study and he could see from his backyard the roof top of the house five houses down and he wasn't too tall. He thought that someone near six feet could probably see a lot more than he could. That was his main concern, the setback on the two-story dwellings. He appreciated them making the offer to j make platforms and balloons to let them see what they were up against. � Their major concerns were privacy and the view. MR. JOE BATOK, 73-500 Woodward, at the northwest corner of Drexell at Woodward in the Kaufman and Broad development, said he wouldn't belabor the point that the three previous speakers had made, but they were all tremendously concerned about the view that they would like to maintain. They bought out there in the first place to insure their views and a paramount of privacy. He said they had a letter that they wanted to pass on to Mr. Smith signed by most of the neighborhood, or at least those that live along Drexell Drive, regarding the hope that the Planning Commission and the Marriott Corporation would keep ihem in mind as this venture progressed and keep their worries in mind. . MR. TERRY LUDWIG also asked the.Marriott group to reevaluate their site levels as they project to look over the wall. He felt it was at an angle that was a little too high. Also, the angle of the road was going to go toward thEir homes. He asked if they could project what the� angle of that road would be because the car lights would shine right at � their homes. He asked that they also take that into consideration. � � 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 �.. Mr. Eastman said he had some comments on the discussions last night. The issue of lights was a concern of a couple of residents. He said they were able to change the road enough so that the lights would not go onto their homes, but would go off into the empty field. As far as the road going by the development there, there was some concern about security which he understood and they would be putting in a gate there that would be closed at night with entrance only with a key so there wouldn't be a problem with vandals. Pl�nting the palm trees at the corners was something they could do and. he said they really appreciated all the input from all the people and they would have a better project because of it. MR. MILOSEVICH, a resident on Drexell Drive, stated that his concern was the view. Two stories would hinder them, unless they were moved back. He noted that the developers were willing to work with them and they definitely wanted the golf course, but the residents wanted a little cooperation. The developers were going to stage a balloon so that they could see how the building would affect their view and he was waiting ,�, for them to do that. MR. ALEXANDER DEWEY, 37-967 Drexell Drive, said he has the same concerns as his fellow neighbors. One of his main concerns was the view. As a homeowner, they bought this house with its beautiful view of the mountains. He complimented the layout but was concerned about the two story buildings that would obstruct the view. This afternoon he said he went out there and measured the distance and from the side view, the angle could be an illusion, but he asked Marriott Ownership Resort to show any obstruction. They didn't have any pictures of that sort. His next concern was congestion of traffic behind the wall. He said they estimated 7,000 cars on a daily basis. He was concerned about the noise and pollution since children would be play in the backyards. Security was also a concern. He wanted to know if the applicants were going to provide secuMty for their backyards so that people wouldn't jump over the wall since it would be a public access. He felt that if it was a gated community in the east section areas, they should have a gated entrance. He said his backyard was right on the corner, but that was a concern for his neighbors as well. He hoped that in the future there was good cooperation with Marriott Ownership �.. 23 MlNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 F' f 1 � Resort and Kaufman and Broad. He appreciated the plan and hoped that they would take the homeowners' consideration seriously. Mr. Withers readdressed the commission and said they were aware of the Kaufman and Broad neighbors' concerns. He said they would do everything they could to address them within certain limits of not building on that property. They heard several times that the homeowners were promised by their developer that their views would never be blocked and they couldn't really respond to what they were told. He did know that they could open the ends up as described and give them that entire vista down that golf green which he felt was very important. Regarding the security issues, there was a concern about having a low wall and people can go over low walls. He felt the issue was gating the entrance, especially after dark which was acceptable to them. The other issue was noise, etc. He felt maintaining the wall and keeping a dense landscaping along there wou{d help solve that problem. He thought that the traffic count number of 7,000 was produced by the city based on the density. He said that this project has taken this land's � density way down because of the addition of the golf course. If this � was a project similar to the Kaufman and Broad project, the density and traffic count would be much higher. One of the reasons they didn't have a traffic report tonight, and he apologized for that, was because they were taking the traffic count way down and were improving the entire situation in this area. They were cognizant of trying to keep the entire drive speed limit down to 15-20 mph. At each one of the villages there would be a raised platform (though not a speed bump) which would go up slightly, go across a textured surface, and then go back down which would help control speed. Every one of the drives entering there would have a stop. They would address the right angle intersections to the boulevard that come through the site to make sure the lights and traffic would be brought to a specific point to lessen any impact on the houses. They thought that last night's meeting was positive and the idea of putting the landscaping at the corners of the lot was an excellent idea. He hoped they appreciated their response in working with them. Chairperson Campbell stated that the public hearing would remain open and asked for commission comments or a motion. � �i 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 � Commissioner Finerty noted that the existing zoning was PR-5 and asked if houses were built there, how many would be allowed on the 300 acres total, if that would be 1500. Mr. Smith concurred that it would be 1500. Commissioner Finerty asked if two story homes were allowed in the PR-5 zone. Mr. Smith replied yes. Commissioner Finerty asked what the height restriction for the two story homes would be. Mr. Smith answered 24 feet. Mr. Drell explained that they would be pretty much excluded from the direct perimeter, but typically within 120 feet or one lot depth is when they could begin two stories. He said the same applies for almo�st any R-1 zone. They require a depth of one lot between two story zones and one story zones. Chairperson Campbell asked if the applicant would have all of the necessary items for staff by May 19 or if they would like a continuance to June 2, 1998. Mr. Withers said that this project is planned for almost a seven to a ten- year sell out. They would phase the project as they go. At this time they didn't have a definitive architectural plan for the resort center and they p(anned to come back to the Architectural Review Commission r,,,, every time they get to the level of detail on each phase of the project as they did with the Desert Springs Parcel B project and that was their intent, to continually keep the homeowners and board informed. Mr. Drell asked if Mr. Withers wanted the continuance to May 19 or June 2. Mr. Withers preferred May 19, 1998. Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and asked for a motion to continue this case to May 19, 1998. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, continuing PP/CUP 98-5, TT 28818 and DA 98-1 to May 19, 1998 by minute motion. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Beaty abstained). IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of a Determination of Use request to allow convenience/commercial uses to apply within the S.I. zone. (Proposed .. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 � � r1 request is to locate at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Green Way.) Mr. Drell explained that periodically staff brought before Commission � determination of uses not listed and one of the more common requests have been in the Service Industrial zone. He said the current request involves the property on Cook Street north of Green Way. He said that typically the city has been approving convenience/commercial uses t}�at serve the industrial area such as sandwich shops, little convenience stores,��etc. This request goes beyond that. They were talking about convenience/commercial uses that serve the residential area and was something more than a little 1 ,800 or 2,000 square foot convenience store. Staff thought it might be stretching the S.I. zone a little too far, but on the other hand when the industrial zone was originally created it was kind of the "back 40" and they were going to put the uses here that they didn't want to see on Highway 1 11 or EI Paseo. Since that occurred, Cook Street has become one of the major entrances/boulevards in the city and residential areas were developing around this industrial zone. He asked if it was time to consider permitting a more residentially oriented/general public oriented commercial facility at this particular location. ,� That was the question for commission. He asked for guidance as to whether the commission thought it would be appropriate to initiate a change of zone for this parcel or something like that. He felt this part of the city had changed dramatically since 1980 when this area was originally set up. One of the commercial uses would be something like a down scaled Jensen's market like the one at Frank Sinatra. Mr. Drell noted that he has been out at the timeshare facility and he has seen people walking with shopping bags coming back from Ralph's market and going into the timeshare units. He asked for commission direction. Mr. Drell indicated that the applicant was present if the commission wished to hear from him. He felt that Mr. Green's letter was very complete in outlining his request. MR. BOB GREEN, President of Lakeside Corporation, a family corporation, stated that he has owned �the property for over 20 years and they were involved in the Master Plan for the Cook Street Business Park and started their first building there in 1981 . The vacant parcels fronting Cook Street have been that way ever since. He thought the Cook Street Business Park, of which Southern California Gas Company was a major tenant, was one of the most beautiful parks in the Valley ; and they have always prided themselves in the looks of the park and the � 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 � upkeep and maintenance and design. He felt there was a definite pride of ownership. In keeping with that, the growth of Cook Street itself and the evolution has taken a turn and was no longer in the backyard of Palm Desert and was really in the heart of it and it is now a major artery connecting to I-10. He felt there were many retail uses along there. There was a bank, restaurant and market right across from his property, all within the industrial zone. They thought the timing was right to develop out the property and thejr �vere involved right now in discussions with the city as far as the condemnation of some property and realigning 42nd Street into the park. He didn't know if that really mattered because they would go ahead and develop one way or another. What he was talking about was that at 42nd Street it could potentially be a lighted intersection where it would be extended east across Cook Street and into the park. Green Way would basically be abandoned and moved up to the northern end of the park. He asked if the commission would like to see a drawing. Commissioner Beaty stated that he was very interested in the discussion. He �.r. goes through there frequently and he asked why Green Way didn't get aligned with Velie. He said there were times that it was impossible to get onto Cook Street. Mr. Green felt that was the heart of why they were trying to realign it. Commissioner Beaty reiterated that was his concern. Mr. Green agreed that it was being discussed and was a safety issue for people trying to make a left turn out of there. Commissioner Beaty asked if it would line up with Velie or 42nd. Mr. Green said 42nd. . Mr. Drell explained that it would be brought to the north right to the northern edge of the property. Commissioner Beaty noted that there was a stop sign at Velie. Mr. Green concurred. Commissioner Beaty asked if there would also be a light at 42nd. Mr. Green replied yes, but thought that the stop sign would be eliminated and �.. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 � � � � it was his understanding that there would be a median along Cook Street there. Mr. Greenwood explained that the project would involve removal of the stop signs at Velie and probably installation of inedians to control left turns there and the installation of a signal at 42nd if it was extended across to the east. Commissioner Beaty felt that no left turn at Veli�,would present the same problem. Mr. Greenwood said they were exploring the possibility of extending the street at the west end of Velie through to 42nd through the city's Corporation Yard. Commissioner Beaty noted that they were all well aware of the problem and asked that they not move the problem across the street. Commissioner Beaty said that he had no problem with the uses being proposed. Mr. Green informed commission that presently the property is 3.29 acres. With the condemnation and trading/swapping it would probably � be reduced down to about 97,500 square feet. He didn't know what !.,� the coverage was but he was looking at what would be the best use for that area and he felt it would be a quasi-retail commercial center. He looked at the design showrooms in the area, the retail uses in the area and at the residential uses in the area. He thought there was a need for that. Jensen's Market made a proposal to him out of the blue and this was before any street realignment discussion. This was under the current conditions. He didn't know if the commission had seen their convenience market in Rancho Mirage, but it would be very much an upscale market as well as it is in Palm Desert. He would relish having them as an anchor in that center and in keeping with that, build out a commercial center that both fit their image and what they want to see and what the commission would like to see also. He said this was his second project like this and in pursuing this and given the existing zoning, he found it unfathomable to go ahead and build out a center and then ask for a conditional use permit every time he got a use. He noted that Mr. Drell said they came to the conclusion that this was probably pushing over that line of Service Industrial permitted uses and while they have approved markets, they had been little convenience store • uses of about 1500 square feet. This was definitely more. � � 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 r.. Chairperson Campbell noted they were talking about Jensen's and asked about the proposed size. Mr. Green said it would be approximately 4,000 square feet. Commissioner Fernandez asked the City Attorney if this would be a conflict of interest for him. Mr. Hargreaves didn't believe there was a conflict of interest nor a foreseeable economic impact on his employer. Commissioner Beaty said he didn't have a problem with the proposal because the area has changed so much and those uses would be welcome. Mr. Drell felt the direction would be for staff to initiate as part of a precise plan an appropriate commercial zone for the project being described. Commissioner Beaty noted that could apply to both sides of Cook Street. Mr. Drell agreed that theoretically it could. Commissioner Finerty said she was in agreement with Commissioner Beaty. r.. Action: . It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, directing staff to initiate the appropriate change of zone in conjunction with an application for a precise plan. Motion carried 4-0. B. Continued Case No. ZOA 97-6 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of an amendment to Chapter 25.56.500 of the Municipal Cade (Hotel Development Standards). Mr. Drell explained that this was a case number created when the code was going to be amended for the hotel standards and when the recent Marriott proposal was processed it was given another case number and staff just wanted to table this one. _ Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, accepting withdrawal of Case No. ZOA 97-6 by minute motion. Carried 4-0. r... 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 � �i C. Request for approval of revised Palm Desert Planning Commission Bylaws Commissioner Beaty stated that he would like to put this item off until Commissioner Jonathan could participate in the discussion. Chairperson Campbell asked if the commission would like another study session to discuss the bylaws. Commission agreed. Mr. Hargreaves suggested that if staff confirmed the attendance of all commissioners; the study session could be scheduled for May 19 at 6:00 p.m. so that he coulc��also address any other questions the commission might have regarding conflicts. Mr. Smith noted that the meeting of May 19 might be rather lengthy and suggested that they might want to continue this to June 2 since the evening would be that much longer. Mr. Drell briefed the Commission on upcoming public hearing items. Commissioner Beaty said he would not like to do it on June 2 because he has previous plans. Chairperson Campbell suggested June 16; Commissioner Beaty said he would be out of the country then. Commissioner Beaty said they could have the study session without him. After further discussion � Commission instructed staff to place this item on the next study session � agenda and regular agenda if Commissioner Jonathan could attend. .� Action: None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE None. B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE None. • C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE None. 5 � � 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 r.. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE None. E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP None. F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE -"April 22, 1998 Mr. Smith indicated that ZORC discussed the necessity of amending the ordinance as it applies to appeals of decisions by the Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission. After lengthy discussion, they decided to leave everything the way it is which means that appeals of ARC will go to the City Council and appeals of decisions of Planning Commission will also go to the City Council. The discussion had been as to whether appeals of ARC should come through the Planning Commission. The basic problem they saw with that was that r.. the applicant was subjecting himself to two appeal processes. Mr. Smith noted that also on May 19 staff would bring back the mixed uses in the Service Industrial District. ZORC was supportive of that with similar language as per the C-1 zone. There was also discussion about temporary window signage. Mr. Drell asked if they discussed China Garden. Chairperson Campbell indicated that they discussed having ten square feet for EI Paseo, 20 square feet for other areas and 50 square feet for commercial and they hadn't decided what to recommend for China Garden. Mr. Smith concurred. He said they were also looking at amending the sign ordinance or Highway 111 frontages between Monterey and Deep Canyon. Right now it was limited to one square foot per linear foot of frontage of the building. The suggestion was for raising that for those uses to one and a half square feet. X�• COMMENTS None. �.. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 � :� � � XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. PHILIP DRE�.L Secreiayr-----�- ATTEST: � ��.c.�c�t� C�-���-.. ��-� SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm i � � � � � 32