Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0602 MINUT�S PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSI�SN R�CULr4� MEETING TUESDAY - JUNE 2, 1998 ... 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WAl�IG ARIVE * * � .� * � � �. �. � .� .� .� * .� * .� .� � * � * � �. * * � .» * * .� �. � � * * �. * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Fernandez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan, Vice Chairperson Paul Beaty George Fernandez Cir�dy Finerty .� Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Phil Joy Bob Hargreaves Martin Alvarez . ; Mark Greenwood Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Reque'st•for consideration of the May 19, 1998 meetir�g minutes. A tion: , at-:�as mflved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissiorier Beaty, - approvic�g.�the lVlay 19, 19�8 mir�utes. Motion carri�d 5-0. � � � � V. SUMMAIRY dF CO�UN�Ik A�TION _(Vlr. D�e6f summarized pertinent May 28, 1998 City Council actions. . VI. ORAL �t7MMUNIC�4tIESNS �" None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 . .� VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 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 Permit 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 i"� Highway 1 1 1 and Portola Avenue. Chairperson Campbell asked for a show of hands of those in the audience that would like to speak in regard to this case (there was one gentleman). Mr. Drell indicated that the staff report recommendation was for a 30 day continuance, but the applicant was now requesting a 60-day continuance. Based on the indeterminate nature of this application, staff recommended that this matter be continued to a time uncertain and once it was ready to come back staff would renotice it so people didn't have to keep coming back. Chairperson Campbell announced that the public hearing was still open and asked if the gentleman would like.,to address the Commission. MR. GARY TRYON, 74-047 San Marino CiFcJe, stated that at the April 7, 1998 meeting there were some issues brought up about violations of conditions at that complex. He said he wrote a letter to every commissioner and every city councilman about three weeks ago and he got a response from the mayor and no one else. He indicated that all of the violations that have been going on for the past seven years have continued to this minute. It was an ongoing nightly thing. In addition „� 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION • � - • ���` JUNE 2, 1998 �.. to the now severe criminal problems they have had in that lot, he said he supposed that everyone knew about the armed car jacking and they now had armed guards wearing bullet proof vests wandering that lot every night. Over in the Ace Hardware lot also. As far as he knew the City still hadn't given them permission to park over there. It was not covered in their use permit but they have been using that lot for three months now. Now they were getting complaints from other neighbors because of the noise and conditions over at the Ace lot. He thought it was getting a bit ridiculous for this to keep going on and on and on. City Council instructed Mr. Ortega to deal with them in March of 1997. Nothing has been done. He said that Planning Commission instructed Mr. Ortega in April of this year to do something. Nothing has been done, other than Mr. Ortega made an offer to buy his property at a loss to him. He said it just kept going. Every time it came up it got continued and continued. Now it was being continued indefinitely. They had armed criminals running around that neighborhood because of those lots. They have armed guards there every night. He didn't want to be the one to get shot and didn't want to see any of his neighbors r`" get shot. Something needed to be done about it and done soon. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the alleged perpetrator was tracked down to a home in Mr. Tryon's neighborhood. Mr. Tryon said no. Mr. Drell clarified that it was south Palm Desert. Commissioner Jonathan indicated he received some misinformation. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Tryon said he sent all of the commissioners a letter and asked for additional information. Mr. Tryon said a le#ter was sent to every Councilman and every commissioner two or three weeks ago. He stated that the Mayor got � hers because he received a response from her. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he didn't recall receiving that letter. Mr. Tryon said he would be more than happy to make copies and bring them to him tomorrow. � 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 Commissioner Jonathan indicated that staff probably had a copy of it and asked if the Commission could be provided it at the Commission's next meeting or before. Commissioner Jonathan said he understood and very much sympathized with the violations Mr. Tryon was referring to, but the matter before the Commission, in addition to being continued, was to address an application for a conditional use permit to add parking spaces. Indirectly Mr. Tryon's comments were related to that matter, but the venue for any violation of existing ordinances or conditions was not the Planning Commission at this time. That was not the matter before them. Mr. Tryon stated that it was brought up at the meeting two months ago when this all started. Commissioner Jonathan agreed that it was definitely indirectly related when the Commission got into addressing the actual application. He sympathized with Mr. Tryon's concerns, specifically with what was going on in that neighborhood, and he asked staff as part of their report to Commission to � advise the Commission of any known violations that are occurring subject to � the existing conditional use permit. That would weigh on his decision on whether or not to issue additional spaces. That was part of the problem they were trying to solve in creating some alternatives. He asked Mr. Tryon, if he hadn't done it already, to enumerate in as much detail as possible with as many actual examples as he could the actual code violations or conditional use violations that have been occurring. He would definitely be interested in seeing that between now and the next time this matter comes before Commission. Mr. Tryon asked if they knew when this would come up again or if it was just stuck in limbo again like they have been for the last seven years. Commissioner Jonathan thought that was a good point and noted that they weren't stuck in limbo, but the matter would be continued to a time uncertain. The applicant was very anxious to move forward with this because it was in their interest to do that but if Mr. Tryon felt it was dragging on he could come before the Commission at any meeting under Oral Communications and provide the Commission with that kind of a list so that they could follow up and if � nothing else they could direct Code Enforcement to follow up on it if that was the issue, and if it was actually a violation of the existing conditional use � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 +�. permit, then this was the venue to make the city aware of it. He stressed that the Commission was interested in Mr. Tryon's comments but they needed some detail and he could either wait until the next time this specific matter came up which hopefully would be some time in July, but if in Mr. Tryon's opinion this was taking too long, then he could come before the Commission and they could address it then. Mr. Tryon said he wouldn't hold his breath but thanked the Commission for listening to him. Commissioner Jonathan said the Commission hoped not to live up to Mr. Tryon's expectations and thanked him for his time. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing CUP 91-9 Amendment to a date uncertain by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. � B. Continued Case Nos. GPA 98-3, C/Z 98-4 and PP 98-8 - LOWE ENTERPRISES COMMERCIAL GROUP, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment from Office Professional to Specialty Commercial, a Change of Zone from Office Professional (O.P.) to Specialty Commercial (PC-1 ), a Precise Plan of Design for a 180-room hotel, restaurant and automobile dealership, amendment to an existing development agreement, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto for an 1 1 .95 acre site at the southwest corner of EI Paseo and Highway 1 1 1 , also known as: APN 640- 071-080-01 1 . Chairperson Campbel! asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding this project. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell stated that the public hearing was stili open from the Commission's previous meeting of May 19 and noted that the applicant was requesting a continuance to July 7, 1998. �.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 ; � Mr. Drell informed Commission that the application was being amended and it would no longer include the car dealership. The alternative use in addition to the hotel might either be another hotel and there was now interest for medical offices and a health care facility or assisted living. They were getting closer and closer to the desired use of the neighborhood. He said they were making progress. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion to continue the case to July 7, 1998. Commissioner Beaty asked if the applicant was comfortable with a continuance to July 7. Mr. Drell said he didn't know if he was comfortable or not, but he didn't believe they would have a definitive project to present in two weeks and in lieu of having the neighbors show up in two weeks, he wanted a continuance of at least a month so that they would have a project to talk about. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff wanted to go to a time uncertain or if Mr. Drell thought they would be ready with something by then. Since the definition of the project had changed, Mr. Drell felt that it should be renoticed and agreed with a continuance to a date uncertain. The project was sufficiently altered that they should be renoticing it anyway. � Chairperson Campbell called for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing Case Nos. GPA 98-3, C/Z 98-4 and PP 98-8 to a date uncertain by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. C. Continued Case Nos. GPA 97-6, C/Z 97-1 and PP 97-12 - F & M ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from medium density residential (PR-7) to PC-2 idistrict commercial) on 9.1 acres with a Precise Plan of Design allowing for up to 87,774 square feet of neighborhood center at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue. Mr. Smith informed Commission that this aftemoon a couple of letters and a ; revised site plan were handed out. As well, there were colored exhibits on � display showing the pages that had also been included in the plans that were � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 �.. distributed to the Commission in their packets last Friday. He recalled that this matter was before Commission on two previous occasions. Back in 1993 and 1994. Those requests for amendment to the General Plan and the zone change were not approved by the Council. The Planning Commission recommended approval of both projects. The 1994 project's residential portion was approved and created 127 single family lots in the Merano development. They have a 9.1 acre site which remained vacant at the corner. It was currently designated medium density residential and zoned PR-7. The request was for amendment to the General Plan and the zoning to permit this precise plan to be approved. The request specifically was for approval of up to 87,774 square feet of neighborhood commercial center. It would include a 62,200 square foot supermarket which is proposed to be the relocation of Lucky's from the south side of the intersection across the street into this site. The project would also include a Sav-On drug store on the corner. The original project included a 3,800 square foot Carl's Jr. at the east end adjacent to Via Scena. That part of the application was recently amended to delete that. On the map Mr. Smith pointed out the location of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue and explained that the revised plan would create two access ""' points on Country Club. Both would be right in and right out only. Along Monterey there would also be two access points. One would be right in/right out and left in from southbound Monterey. The northerly driveway would be right in/right out only. The access point to Via Scena in the original concept was ingress and egress. Revised plans completed in consultation with the neighbors was for egress only. Mr. Smith showed the location of the supermarket, Sav-On, Pad B (a future pad), and Pad A. He added that the Sav-On Drug included a prescription drive-up window not unlike the one that was proposed for Walgreens Drug Store. The building at the size proposed had a parking requirement of 439 spaces. The site plan provided for 439 spaces. Architecture was as shown on the colored display boards and the architecture for Sav-On and Lucky's had been granted preliminary approval from Architectural Review Commission. The applicant had a traffic study prepared. It concluded that the traffic volumes in that intersection have been decreased between the time of the last traffic study in 1994 and this one in 1998. The traffic study staff received for the Marriott timeshare project to the north that was before Planning Commission two weeks ago looked at the levels of service at nine intersections. One of them was this intersection at Country Club and Monterey. With the improvements being required of this applicant, which staff provided Commission a copy of in their packets, the ,� existing LOS E would go to a LOS D and if the improvements were made on 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 � � � � the west side of the intersection which is in the city of Rancho Mirage, the LOS would go to C. As mentioned previously, the applicant held a meeting(s) with residents at Merano. Some of those residents came out in support of the project subject to a list of 13 items contained in a letter provided to Commission in their packets. A major change as a result of those meetings was the elimination of ingress to the east off of Via Scena. At this time that access was exit/egress only. The two previous commercial projects that had been proposed on this site boih received the support of staff and Planning Commission approved both projects, the Wal-Mart and the Albertson's. From staff's position, staff did not believe that a residential development was appropriate in this setting given the traffic volumes on both streets. He said that in the staff report he mentioned a reluctance to approve a site plan that wouid have a second supermarket on this street. In fact, the traffic studies that were done that show an acceptable level of service were based on the assumption that there would only be one supermarket on these two sites. A condition of any approval on this applicant would require that he would not be able to obtain a building permit for the new supermarket until, and unless, he has obtained approval of the replacement tenant in the existing center prior to � obtaining a building permit. There were conditions on the precise plan draft resolution which would make that result. In the staff report Mr. Smith outlined how this process could work. The applicant would obtain the zone change but no permit would be issued for the supermarket until a replacement tenant was approved. When the replacement tenant was approved and the upgrades to Plaza de Monterey were approved, then Lucky could obtain a building permit to construct the new store. He noted that the construction at the Deep Canyon Lucky took about eight months. While this was going on the replacement tenant would prepare the fina) working drawings and the City would obtain a letter of credit to guarantee that these improvements could be completed. The replacement tenant would be required to obtain the building permit prior to Lucky obtaining its Certificate of Occupancy for the new store. Then the replacement tenant would complete the improvements and once that store opened, the City would release the letter ot credit back to Lucky. One of the issues staff had with the proposed supermarket was staff's concern that the loading docks were so close to the residential development to the north and east. In the case of Lucky at Deep Canyon, there was a tunnel installed at the north end of the building. The tunnel was a solid tunnel with a roof and wall system. They had been pleasantly surprised that there haven't been noise complaints from that operation. The applicant came up with a alternative/optional way of approaching the noise concern at the loading 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 � docks. It was shown on a display board. The driveway for the loading dock was depressed and at the north end of the property they were proposing a retaining wall and then a berm on top of it with landscaping on top of the berm. There are residential units in Merano presently under construction and 1 1 are unoccupied and Mr. Smith showed the location of those units. Staff wasn't sure that type of noise control system would be as effective as a tunnel, He put in a condition in the draft resolution that they would install a tunnel that would run across the north and which would turn around the east and west end of the building so that it faces south. Alternatively, the applicant could have a noise impact analysis performed that would tell staff whether this system would be the equivalent to a tunnel. Mr. Smith said he was handed a noise study five minutes to 7:00 p.m. and he hadn't had an opportunity to review it, so staff would continue to recommend the condition the way it is currently presented. Mr. Smith noted that the project was before the Economic Development Advisory Committee on March 19. EDAC endorsed the application subject to three conditions as outlined on page 8 of the staff report. From the environmental impact perspective, staff was suggesting that a Negative Declaration could be certified. Staff's conclusion '�' was that a neighborhood commercial center would be appropriate on this corner and that Planning Commission should recommend approval to the City Council of the general plan amendment, change of zone and precise plan as presented, subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the intersection at Country Club and Via Scena was egress only as staff recommended, if it would remain signalized. Mr. Greenwood replied yes. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that when earlier studies or consideration of signalization in that area was discussed, a signal was considered to be too close to Monterey and Country Club. He asked if staff anticipated that being a problem with cars stacking up. Mr. Greenwood replied no and explained that the signal has already been designed to include coordination with the signal at Monterey so it would mitigate that problem. With regards to the loading and unloading, Commissioner Jonathan noted that at the Deep Canyon center there was a problem with the truck circulation route and asked if there was a circulation plan for this project and how it would be enforced. Mr. Smith said there wasn't a circulation plan, but he could explain how it was anticipated for the truck traffic to approach and leave the site. He asked if that was the question. Commissioner Jonathan ' explained that they had expectations of how the trucks would get to the ,r,,, loading dock at Deep Canyon and then get out, but when he's been there he 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 .��i has seen trucks in the main parking lot, which he believed was not the intent. He assumed they were to come in at one edge of the parking lot, circulate through the loading dock and come out at the other edge of the parking lot instead of going across the front part of the grocery store. He asked if there was a similar intent at the proposed location to keep the trucks out of the public traffic flow. Mr. Smith replied yes. He said part of the problem at the Deep Canyon Lucky was the time delay in getting the intersection improvements there in that they could not access the site in the way the plan was designed. They have been using Highway 111 more than they anticipated. On this project, access off of Monterey would go across the front of the store and circulate around. He also noted there would be a solid median on Country Club. Trucks coming from Ralphs at Country Club and Cook would enter at the easterly most driveway on Country Club. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff anticipated that being a problem to have the trucks go across the front. Mr. Smith said he wasn't aware there was a problem at the Deep Canyon Lucky. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. � MR. TIM BARTLETT, 73-382 Salt Cedar Street in Palm Desert, stated that he would go over some of the issues staff and Commission pointed out. He said that with him at the meeting were the project architect Mike Mahoney from F & M Associates, Richard Frandsen from F & M Associates, Jeff Timbers from American Stores who handles both Lucky and Sav-On real estate and leads, and Bob Cannon, the entitlement and development consultant. They were all present to answer any questions. Mr. Bartlett said that not dissimilar to the move from EI Paseo to Deep Canyon, Lucky was interested in providing better services for their customers. The consumer today desired more fast food products and their frozen food departments have increased considerably. They have also added additional bakeries. He said that at the Deep Canyon store, it provided the full amenities that a modern market has today. Ralphs at Country Club and Cook was a newer store and it provided some of those amenities. The existing Lucky store at the southeast corner of Country Club and Monterey was too small to provide these kinds of amenities for the modern consumer. In addition, this site was riddled with problems from conception. Circulation was poor, the access into the site is poor and egress is equally as poor. � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 w.. Parking is inadequate and inefficient. It had not been a good move. He felt that residents from Sagewood could tell the Commission that they have not enjoyed the tenancy of Lucky at that location. Mr. Bartlett said their desire was not only to move Lucky across the street to a site that would be engineered for a market, and Mr. Greenwood could attest to that, but their idea was to move the market which is a use that demands good access, good circulation, and good parking to a site that is designed for that. As well, they would make sure they were not leaving a vacancy. They were agreeing not to develop the site until an acceptable replacement tenant was found, acceptable not only to the City but to the Sagewood homeowners living behind it. They would provide a new center that not only provides the amenities for today's consumer, but revitalize the existing center. As pointed out by Mr. Smith, an Albertson's was proposed at this site nearly four years ago. He was very much involved in that development proposal and he attended several meetings with the Sagewood homeowners. At that time Merano was not built but he met with a lot of people at Suncrest. They actually gained approval from Planning, from ARC and it went to `'�' Council and at that time Council felt there was no compelling reason to build more commercial. Today there was a compelling reason. There is a rea( estate boom and he didn't think anyone could deny that most tract sales were up 30%-40%. He felt Merano was a good example where they are selling homes at a fast pace. There were over 2,000 new homes planned for this market trade area. Across the street on the southwest corner in Rancho Mirage the property was about to go under contract and would soon be developed. The property behind the fire station on Portola was planned to be developed with 403 units. Section 4 was going wild with new developments planned. The Marriott timeshare project if it went forward would generate a lot of patrons looking for places to shop. They felt that from a business of providing food for patrons it made a great deal of sense. One of the things they did was look at Deep Canyon. He said they spent 14 months in 1995 working with the surrounding homeowners and developing plans and with staff's assistance came up with a good plan. They actually looked at that plan again and improved on that plan. Architecturally they had taken a similar residential scale of the building, added more trellises, more stone work and landscaping to soften it even further. They had done some very hard engineering as far as circulation patterns, etc. � Rather than wait for the notification to the property owners within 300 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 � ,nr feet, they felt that all of the Merano residents would be concerned about what they were developing so they approached all of them with letters to set up a meeting. The first meeting was nearly a month ago. They had a good turnout of around 30 or 35 homeowners. He said he was impressed by how astute they were. They didn't necessary take their word for anything (which he didn't expect them to) they investigated the Deep Canyon store, they met with staff and staff was very cooperative in that manner and he commended them on that. They went behind the gates at Hidden Palms and looked at the truck docks. They drove through the truck docks. They talked to past presidents and current presidents and homeowners and talked to as many residents as they could find to determine how they were treated and how their development was impacted. He thought they were quite a thorough group. He said they were demanding, but very reasonable. Unfortunately, some of the new demands came in late and staff (both Public Works and Planning) were kind enough to accommodate the plan. They had a lot of last minute changes. One of those in particular which was mentioned by Mr. Smith was the report from the sound engineer. � One of the big issues was sound. The residents wanted to maintain � their quiet enjoyment of the residences they live in. Lighting was another issue, noise and odor were also part of that. Regarding the sound issue, it was one that they studied very carefully. He said they did not propose the tunnel even though they proposed many of the conditions that the homeowners demanded, which were also things they conditioned for Hidden Palms. Part of the reason they didn't propose a tunnel was when a tunnel was provided, the tunnel actually had a megaphone effect. They felt that by providing a tunnel like they did near Hidden Palms, which they now felt was a mistake, they directed all the sound in an east-west direction. Staff recommended that they not only provide a tunnel but wrap it around the corners which would push the sound out in a southerly direction. One of the things the sound engineer said in the sound report was that sound contained in a "box" would not only come out the open ends but would also be up against the vibrations that sound create and would actually create greater sound at that retaining wall location. The sound engineer believed that the mounding was adequate to mitigate the sound and that the truck enclosure would actually be an adverse solution and � would create a problem. They investigated possibly putting doors on � the end of it to contain it even further which generally created more of � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 r.. a problem with roll up doors. Truck enclosures also required exhaust ventilation with equipment which would provide additional noise. He concurred with the noise engineer's study and designed the project without the truck enclosure. Circulation was an important item. He felt they made some mistakes on Deep Canyon and some of them were actually generated in subsequent meetings with government officials, but one of the issues was truck access. Commissioner Jonathan brought up the issue of truck access and Mr. Bartlett felt that they were essentially going to have trucks that enter south bound from Monterey which would have to go in front of the store because it is a one-way truck dock loading situation and they now had an exit road which would take trucks directly back out to Monterey. That was another last minute change and the uncolored site plan showed that. In addition, if they were going down Country Club they could enter the new driveway approach and enter straight back in and exit onto Monterey. They were fortunate to have one of the Merano homeowners in the trucking industry for 25 years and they met with him on two occasions to , discuss the problems with trucks, how they operate, turning radiuses "" and those kinds of things. They felt that with the circulation pattern and the way the project is bermed to mitigate the sound, that would provide the necessary mitigation procedures to keep sound out. One other thing the homeowners thought might be appealing were lighted date palm trees. They carried the same landscaping theme around the entire center and around the berming area so they would duplicate the iit date palm entrance which is a nice amenity at Merano and would be a nice amenity to the shopping center. Mr. Bartlett noted that another issue was view of the mountains. They took a picture looking down the street. At the time they took the photos the homes shown against the back wall were not developed. They are currently under construction but are not quite finished so they superimposed some existing residences in Merano to this location to show what it would look like for homeowners from this perspecfiive. There was a little sliver where the actual parapet of the Lucky store would be located. From the rear yards the homes directly impacted would not see it. He showed a line of sight which totally blocked the parapet, but as they looked that way from farther back, they were getting elevated back and would see a different perspective and those would pick up a slight perception of the parapet wall. They felt, and most of the homeowners they spoke to ,� agreed, that putting in a truck tunnel which is a massive architectural 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNiNG COMMISSION = JUNE 2, 1998 - { � element closer to that wall provided a massive building which would block their views. He thought they were more concerned about views than sound. The developer of the site was concerned about both issues since he was in the process of selling the 12 homes and staff was concerned about noise. He felt they would find, after reviewing the report from the noise engineer, that it would be mitigated by the berm. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty asked what was planned for Pads A and B. Mr. Bartlett said they originally planned a Carl's Jr. located at the entrance of Merano. The homeowners felt that was an inappropriate use and they eliminated a fast food use from that pad. At one time they were proposing an ARCO at the pad closest to Merano. They also felt that was an inappropriate use and they have now conditioned the site to not include a gas station and/or convenience store. They had a letter to the Commission which he believed was part of their packet which outlined 13 conditions and some prohibited some of those uses. � He thought that some of the homeowners felt that food uses were acceptable if they were not grilling, frying, or broiling. They were looking for possibly a deli or that kind of a thing that would not create an odor problem that would be a nice amenity to the area. There was a strong lack of food users in that area, with the exception of the uses across the street. There were a lot of fast food users in that center and had about 30% fast food uses. To answer the question directly, he didn't know, he just knew what they couldn't put there. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Bartlett knew the height of the berm for the proposed Lucky versus the one at Deep Canyon. Mr. Bartlett replied yes and showed the Commission a drawing that was a comparison of the proposed berm and the berm at Deep Canyon. The berm was slightly higher. Hidden Palms was actually lower than the site so the line of sight was slightly different. In this situation they were lowering the truck dock and lowering that whole area to provide a higher berm. On their side it would be 20 feet high and on the Merano side it would be six feet above their five foot wall. > �i � 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 ��.. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the Commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. She noted that under Oral Communications everyone was allowed five minutes and it would be the same for the Public Hearing section. MS. STACIE WHITFORD, 164 Via Tramonto, stated that she lives in the Merano development and was the sole homeowner on the Board of Directors for the Merano development at this time. She spent a lot of time on the phone with Mr. Smith and thanked everyone in the City who answered all of her questions over the last two weeks. She spent a lot of time talking to a lot of the homeowners and although she was speaking for many of them, she wasn't speaking for all of them. She understood that the land had to be developed and they were interested in developing it in the best interests of the homeowners and the rest of the community. After looking at it and speaking to several other homeowners, they weren't sure that residential development would be what they want there. Based on the type of development, that appeared to be what would end up there on Monterey and Country `"' Club. They did have someone in their development with over 20 years of trucking experience and she, Tim Bartlett and that gentleman met and came up with the alternate plan. She said there was one home sold on the street that would back up to the supermarket and he was very much against a tunnel and it would move the building so much closer to his home and he had some concerns with that. They helped draw up the 13 conditions. They looked at development at Deep Canyon and the Ralph's development at Cook and Country Club and took the ones they felt were important to their homeowners and incorporated them into these conditions. She said she was also speaking on behalf of the Board. The Merano board was currently made up of herself, the developer and one employee of the management company. They were unanimousty in favor of ihe project as presented by Mr. Bartlett. She knew the Commission had a copy of the letter with the 13 conditions and they have approximately 25 signed letters from 25 separate homes in the development which the Commission should be receiving some time this evening. As a homeowner who lived fairly close to the development, she knew there was no perfect solution but it appeared that they have done a good job to develop it in the homeowners' best interest and had really taken their opinions to heart. ` 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 2, 1998 � � MS. JAN GOLD, 176 Via Tramonto, said there were several things that concerned her and one was that there were some rampant rumors going around that if they don't accept this project completely as it is offered to them they would have low income apartments on that corner. She said it wasn't even zoned now for low income as she understood it. That was one of the rumors which had a lot of people concerned. Another concern was the talk about not having the tunnel. She thought that no matter how caref�l people are around food, when they have trimmings of produce and produce spoils there can be roaches, flies and even vermin and if they had the tunnel, it could control that a lot more easily than a berm. She was concerned about that. Thirdly, she uses the gate on Monterey and noticed that they said they would have trucks coming down from the freeway that would be turning left into the new shopping center. Trucks would be coming out of the new shopping center and with two exits on Monterey quite far north and one to the extreme north of the property where they would be coming out and it seemed to her that it would be a horrendous traffic problem and she didn't know what they could do about that. She couldn't imagine that � it wouldn't be a problem. She thought it might help if they would consider not having an extreme north exit there because that would give them some time to get over to the left before they came to the right. She hoped the Commission would take that into consideration. It was very hard for her to believe that not having a tunnel would help in the case of smells or insects or pests or for the fumes. It seemed to her that it would spread the fumes back there even more, but perhaps it wouldn't and she hoped it was still something they would consider. She thanked the Commission. MR. DENNIS LOVINGFOSS, 143 Via Tramonto, said some of the concerns that he and his wife share on the plan were the elevation of the berm and whether or not it would prohibit their view of the mountains. He said their house was on the corner lot. He indicated that the berm would come down in elevation at that point. Mr. Bartlett agreed and said it would meet the sidewalk at that point. Mr. Lovingfoss asked how far down the truck dock grade would be, if it would be eight feet below the grade of Monterey so that the trucks would actually be climbing up a hifl. Mr. Mahoney spoke from the audience and said the grade difference would be four feet. Mr. � Lovingfoss said their concerns were with the view and truck traffic � 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 � there coming in and out at that corner from 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. If there was a circulation pattern that could be devised to eliminate that, they would be all for that. He looked at the circulation pattern and it appeared to him that the obvious course would be for trucks coming off of Country Club Drive to turn right into the project to go to the back of the Lucky's to the loading dock. To him it looked like a straight shot out to the corner which impacted their home considerably. That was one of the things they were really concerned about. The berm elevations quoted here, with six feet above finished grade of the wall, actually took out the view of all the mountains from Eisenhower all the way up around through San Jacinto. With that berm there the only thing they would have a view of would be blue sky and a lot of trucks. He said he would welcome any opportunity to go over other circulation patterns and look at the berm and meet with their engineer. Another issue was that they would allow the Merano representatives to review the final landscaping plan, but not have any say so in it. That was how he read it and asked if that was correct. Mr. Bartlett said that was not the intent. Mr. Lovingfoss said he was looking at the berm over at the 'r Deep Canyon center. Hypothetically a berm at 20 feet tall and 17 feet of growth on top of that added up to 37 plus feet tall. In their case they have assured the residents that the landscaping would not exceed three feet on top of the berm and the top of the berm would be undulating six to nine feet from grade of the top of the wall. He just wanted to voice those concerns. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Lovingfoss's home was one of the original ones or if it was one of the last ones being built. Mr. Lovingfoss said it was one of the original homes. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on the location of Mr. Lovingfoss's home in relationship to the proposed grocery store. Mr. Lovingfoss said it was the corner house right where the trucks would stop to pull out onto Monterey. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was the berm location Mr. Lovingfoss was concerned, not the berm to the north of the store. � 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 i � Mr. Lovingfoss replied that right now, that was all he could be concerned about; however, he had been assured that it sloped down on that side but he still wanted to see it engineered or have someone come out and show him exactly. As far as the other homes along that side, at finished grade if they were in the back yard of those homes it was his opinion the same thing would occur. There would be no view of the mountains whatsoever. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that Mr. Lovingfoss's concern was the direct impact on him and his property at the one corner. Mr. Lovingfoss said the truck traffic and mountain view were concerns. Regarding the north side of the store, Commissioner Jonathan asked for the distance between the edge of the store and the closest residential structure that would be built. Mr. Smith said it would be 88 feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that the sloping of the berm would begin around 40 feet from structure. He said what he was getting at was he heard � during staff's report and saw in the pictures on display that there would be � minimal impact on views. He was looking for some reassurance given the recent comments. Mr. Mahoney spoke from the audience and said that the line of site was five feet four inches to eye height. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was about 90 feet they were looking at from the person to the structure. Mr. Mahoney said it would be 85 feet to 90 feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked how that compared to the mountains that would be to the south of that building. He asked if the residents would be able to see the mountains or not. Mr. Mahoney said that the two lots behind the store would not be able to see the mountains south of there but they would pick up the mountains towards the west. i , � 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 � MR. MARK KAPLAN, 152 Via Tramonto, thanked the Commission for allowing him to speak. He noted it had been said that their Board of Directors for the homeowners association voted unanimously in favor of the development of this project, but he wanted to say that the view of the Board did not retlect completely or accurately the view of all the homeowners. Yesterday when he realized that his feelings weren't being adequately represented he drafted a letter to the Commission. He delivered it this afternoon to staff and apologized that the letter was very difficult to read and the type was not sufficiently dark. He said he would like to read from that letter to the Commission as follows: "While we have joined with our neighbors in listing certain restrictions and requirements to be included as conditions to any approval of the commercial center development as proposed by F & M Associates, we wish to go on record as being opposed to approval of the proposal at this time. The restrictions and requirements that have been set forth are in no way indicative of support for the project, but rather should be viewed only as attempts to limit damage to the peaceful enjoyment of our homes and to lessen the negative impact on our lives that the `""' proposed commercial center would cause if approved and built. We're opposed to approval at this time for the following reasons: There is already a commercial center on the southeast corner of Monterey and Country Club. Having two such retail commercial centers directly opposite each other will negatively impact the attractiveness of Country Club Drive and destroy its residential beauty. The addition of a second retail commercial center would make existing traffic problems even worse. The proposed center would have a negative impact on the value of the existing homes at the Merano development. Attempts to minimize the negative impact on Merano homes are inadequate. We have been presented with a choice of either lessening the negative noise impact by means of a truck delivery tunnel which if built would virtually eliminate the setback from the proposed berm between the major tenant pad and the Merano homes or lessening the negative visual impact by eliminating the truck tunnel which would create the impression of a larger setback but would not provide for noise and refuse containment. While individual residents may view one choice as less negative than the other, neither option is adequately desirable. Also, the homes which are closest to the proposed center are currently under construction. Therefore, the individuals most likely to be impacted are not even ,� represented. Adequate opportunity and time have not been provided for 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION , JUNE 2, 1998 � , � the residents of Merano homes to consider the proposal and the extent of the impact from this center on us. As Merano is a community still under construction the majority of the Board of Directors of our homeowners association is appointed by the developer and not elected by homeowners. While both the developers and homeowners have vested interest in Merano, the long term goals and needs may differ. Also the letters, copies attached, from F & M Associates dated May 18, 1998 and May 26, 1998 to the Merano homeowners each contain the following statement referencing the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for this evening. "The City Council is the final determining body and although we hope.you can attend the Planning Commission meeting, we feel the City Council meeting is far more significant." And no matter how unintentional, it does suggest to the Merano homeowners that attendance and involvement in this Planning Commission meeting is less important than any subsequent City Council meetings and this could result in the interests in our homeowners being inadequately represented at this important state. We therefore ask that �, the request be denied." Also, he felt it should be noted that � approximately 25 letters were being submitted to the Commission in support of this project from homeowners. He asked Commission to consider how many of the letters were distributed, one to each household, and only 25 came back. In fact, two drafts were distributed to them. The first draft was dated May 18 and included a statement that they gave their enthusiastic support to this project. He suggested that their Board realized that they weren't getting sufficient response to that and a second draft was issued on May 26 and the last statement read, as if coming from a homeowner, "We are planning to attend the public hearings to not only show our support but to insist that the above (13) conditions have been met." He said that their presence at the meeting tonight was not indicative of that. After he wrote this letter he showed it to one neighbor just to ask for feedback. The neighbor asked to sign it. In turn he had shown it to eight or nine households and every household he asked has signed the letter and he submitted that signed letter today. He again apologized for the difficulty in being able to read it. When considering how many letters were distributed by their Board of Directors and how few were returned in relation and in one day he got every single person he asked to sign � his letter and they asked to be a signatory to it. He gave Chairperson � Campbell the letter with the signatures. � 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 w.. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Kaplan knew how many homes in Merano were occupied right now. Mr. Kaplan guessed that two-thirds to three-quarters of the division was built and felt it would be a more appropriate question for Diamond West Homes, the developer. Chairperson Campbell asked if he had any idea how many homes were scheduled to be built. Mr. Kaplan said he would guess 70 to 80 built and occupied now, but that was just a guess. Chairperson Campbell asked how many homes the development would hold. Mr. Kaplan said tonight he heard staff say 127. Commissioner Jonathan asked when Mr. Kaplan purchased his home. wr. Mr. Kaplan said the closing date was January 5, 1996. Commissioner Jonathan thought that at that time Mr. Kaplan probably inquired about the vacant lot on the corner and asked what he had been told. Mr. Kaplan said they were told that an Albertson's had inquired and the City Council had turned it down and that allayed his fears of a supermarket getting built against that wall. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Kaplan was made aware of the zoning and the potential use. Mr. Kaplan knew there would be attempts made for some type of commercial use and he understood the needs of the city of Palm Desert and its population, but that might eventually be an appropriate use for that particular parcel, but not the presence of a supermarket of a high volume with the trucks and traffic, the noise and refuse, and the cioseness to the residences. Because he was told an Albertson's was rejected, he thought the city would not permit that use to be built. � 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ; JUNE 2, 1998 � i � � Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Kaplan was opposed to the general commercial use, to a food store, or specific aspects of this design. Mr. Kaplan said that specific aspects included the closeness of the market to the residences and a food store of this magnitude. He was opposed to that and he didn't think that would be a proper use. He assumed it might be a professional office complex, perhaps physicians, attorneys or accountants. Other types of commercial use that wouldn't be as refuse oriented and delivery truck oriented as a supermarket and that was the impression he was given at the time they purchased their home. Chairperson Campbell asked where Mr. Kaplan lived in relation to the project. Mr. Kaplan said it was Lot 23 of phase 1 . There were new homes being constructed along the south wall of Merano and he was across the street from approximately the third home from Monterey. He showed Commission the location on plans provided by Mr. Bartlett. � a�i MR. JOHN McHUGH, 161 Via Tramonto, said he was at the meeting to lend support to Mr. Kaplan's points. He also spoke against the project. He said the back of his lot abuts Monterey. He was about the third house up from the southwest corner and there were about half a dozen homes that had their back wall right on Monterey. He explained that the reason he was addressing the Commission, and he appreciated the opportunity, was when he heard people speak of noise, to him that equated with air quality. Noise was generated by motors and engines. The kind of trucks that would feed this project were diesel. Due to the location of his home, they are inundated with diesel fumes constantly by trucks going north and south on Monterey. If they increased the traffic load of diesel trucks that would supply the goods to this shopping center, the amount of fumes that would come into their yard and the yards of the homes that have their back wall on Monterey would be heavily impacted. He noticed also on the list of conditions that the delivery hours were to be restricted to the hours of 6:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m. That was a very long time to have diesel fumes blowing into his yarJ. The air pattern flowed most of the time across # the Merano homes from the northwest and that meant that every diesel � truck that goes up Monterey heading to the freeway as it accelerates up � 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 � Monterey after it has made its turn out of the shopping center would blow diesel fumes across all of the homes, especially those that have their backyards on Monterey. This might seem inconsequential to some, but noise was air quality. He felt there might be a way to muffle the sound, but those fumes would go into the air. Every homeowner, not on(y in Merano but all the way across Country CIu6 would be affected from not only automobiles, but primarily diesels which he was very concerned with. He felt that was a very long delivery time and a lot of fumes to breathe in every day seven days a week, 365 days a year. He asked if he should have known this when he bought his home and replied that he has to take part responsibility for this but he confessed that he didn't have that kind of foresight to realize there would be this kind of fume buildup from the amount of transportation it would take to feed a shopping center. He appreciated the opportunity to make that point and it was important to him. As desert residents, they spend a lot of time in their back yards. They built a pool and like to spend a lot of time there. As it is now, they were running into the house when the traffic really got wound up and they don't spend as �"" much time outside as they normally would. With the addition of this much commercia! trucking going up and down Monterey, it would be more difficult for them. He thanked Commission. MR. MICHAEL CARLE, a future homeowner in Merano, informed Commission that he works for Diamond West Homes and is a real estate agent for tf�e company and he said he was buying within the development because he believed that the development was a beautiful community and that they have a lot to offer. There were some residents present that were concerned about the development as proposed, but the majority of those residents were not as impacted by the development as his property would be. It will be backed up right against that berm against the commercial development. He chose that site because he didn't want to have a neighbor behind him. He didn't mind having a commercial neighbor such as a Lucky or Sav-On. He believed that the commercial developers putting this development together have come to Merano and Merano homeowners and have worked with them and bent over backwards to accommodate any disagreements they might have. He understood there were a few issues that needed to be ironed out as far as the loading and unloading of the ,�,,, trucks, but he felt those issues had been presented in a fair light tonight 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION , JUNE 2, 1998 � , .ri from Mr. Bartlett and the developers themselves. As a future Merano resident and as a real estate agent selling the other 12 homes along that site, he believed that this would be a positive part of the community and would enhance their area rather than leaving it an open area for future development which they wouldn't know what might come in at a later date. Right now as far as stating his feelings as a future homeowner, he was in full disagreement with having a tunnel there. His home is backed up against that property and he didn't want a tunnel there. He didn't want to look at the back of a building. He didn't buy his home there to look at the back of a building and didn't want a tunnel there and he would rather have a berm. He would also rather have a lighted landscape berm behind his home than look 20 feet away from his backyard and see a building. He was very much opposed to that and he was only one of 13 homeowners that back up against that property and he was speaking for the other future 13 homeowners due to the fact that he would be the one selling them their home. He hoped in the future that they could work the property to where these homeowners would see what he envisioned as going in there. Also, � regarding the Deep Canyon Lucky store, that tunnel in his opinion was � a monstrosity. If he was one of those residents over there, his home would be up for sale immediately. He wouldn't want to be living next to that, but that was his opinion. He noted that some of the people tonight have said that a majority of the Merano homeowners have not been represented here and as a developer and the homeowners association they have sent out letters to all homeowners. He wanted to state that most of the homeowners were part time residents, so they weren't here to be able to attend this meeting but they were well aware of how the site was going to be developed. On top of that, when some of the first phase buyers bought into Merano, they were told when they bought in Merano that it was certainly proposed residential. They were proposing that they get it rezoned to go commercial and put in a Lucky and Sav-On there. They were told they had to sign an addendum. His company now has as part of their contract with the homeowners when they purchase their property a site disclosure form stating that by law they have to disclose the fact that a commercial site would be going in there. It is on their plot map as a future commercial site. They were disclosing to any potential future homeowner buying within Merano that ¢ the property will go commercial. He was very much in favor of it going � commercial and he thought it would be an asset to the community. He ,� 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 ... was there six or seven days a week on site in and around the community selling homes and taiking to homeowners. He didn't think the few in opposition was representative of the total number of existing homeowners. They had about 82 built homes and that would not include the 12 new homes they were building and they had about 69 or 70 residences that were built. Out of the 70 residences they have gotten 25 letters back, which he felt was a very good response from the homeowners that live there. Most of the residents who have responded are full time residents and are well aware of what is going on. Those were just some of his concerns with what was going on and he stated that as a future homeowner backing up against the proposed project, he believed that Mr. Bartlett and his colleagues have bent over backwards to make Merano homeowners happy, as well as working with Diamond West Homes. He urged the Commission to approve this plan and let the parcel go commercial. MR. WILBUR ROUS, 269 Corte San Marco, informed Commission that what Michael Carle said was not true. He had 16 people sign a �"' document that said they want a tunnel and didn't want anything to do with an exit at their entrance. And they just got this letter started a couple of days ago. He said there was no way the people in Merano wanted Lucky customers to exit out of their entrance. If there wasn't a light, fine. They have lived without one this long so they decided they didn't want Lucky to exit out their entrance. Everyone knew that people would go in at that location, not just exit, and when there was a short little driveway like that with that many people coming out of a complex trying to get out when all the people from Lucky were coming out, they would have to wait at the stop sign a long time before they could turn. He submitted the letter to Commission. Commissioner Jonathan asked if what Mr. Rous was suggesting was that on Via Scena there be no ingress or egress to the center. Mr. Rous agreed and said the homeowners didn't want any of that traffic. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Rous was strongly in favor of a tunnel. � Mr. Rous said that if they had to put up a store, yes. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 � � � .� MR. BILL CARVER, 72-955 Deergrass in Palm Desert, said he spoke also as the owner of the shopping center directly across the street from the proposed development. He thought there was a problem here that the city has faced in the past in dealing with this company that he wanted to make the Commission fully aware of tonight. American Stores operated both the Sav-On and the Lucky markets. Once a project is approved here they would have "their nose under the tent" as far as moving across the street from his center. They were putting the cart before the horse. Mr. Bartlett spoke in glowing terms about what is happening at Deep Canyon, but on the other hand the store that Lucky vacated on EI Paseo, which he happened to build also, is still sitting vacant. No matter what the City has done with demanding certain things for them to do, that store has never been occupied in accordance with what was agreed to between that company and this city. He thought that by approving this the way it is set up is asking for the same thing to happen here. It may very well be that the market wouldn't move across the street immediately, but would wait until they find a suitable replacement tenant to go into the market that they � presently occupy, but in the meantime that property would stay vacant, ""� they would have their drug store up and Lucky or American Stores would already be across the street and it would only be a matter of time before they would either wear down the City, the Council, until they can go across the street because they couldn't get a replacement tenant or they come to the City with a replacement tenant that is entirely unsuitable for that site. He suggested a re-drafting of the way this should be approved. He didn't feel that any action should be taken by this Commission until a lease or an escrow was entered into for the re- tenanting of the center across the street. Unlike the one at EI Paseo, Lucky or American Stores own this property. This is a situation where they bought the property together many years ago with Smith's Food King and Smith's Food King sold out to Lucky, so Lucky became the co- venture on this property. One of the reasons they have had problems keeping this property up to speed was because of having to work with Lucky all this time. That was a whole other subject. He indicated that they have complete control over what they do with this property. They could go "dark", put anyone else in there they want to and they would sit there without having any kind of a lever to make them do anything. He has seen suggestions that they put in a bowling alley. He wasn't : sure that was to the benefit of the existing tenants or the people in ,� 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 �... Sagewood directly behind it. He thought they should divulge who they were going to put in there before this got too far along in the approval process. He felt no action should be taken by the Commission until they know who was going to go in the other building that they were going to vacate. The other problem was with them moving out and the period that seemed to go on forever between the time they go out and the time the new tenant goes in. He called it the "go dark" period, the period when no one was in the building. He suggested that Lucky go dark. That the Commission give Lucky the right to build when they have a lease ready to sign and someone to go in or sale to a suitable tenant for the existing building and the neighbors all agree that is what they want to see there. When that happens, then Commission should consider the application and grant them the zoning at that time if the City wanted another center there. At that point he thought Lucky and Sav-On should be able to go ahead and build their buildings, but Lucky should not be able to occupy that space until the other tenant occupies their space. There would be a dark time but they would see the fastest construction period ever between the time they close that store and '� move across the street because they would demand that of whomever they make the deal with. That way Lucky would be on the City's side. They wouldn't be forcing a penalty on them of only $250,000 or a letter of credit. They would be told they weren't getting a customer in their store until they have the other building open. That way there wouldn't be a vacancy in Palm Desert. Those were his suggestions. MR. R.J. MAYER informed Commission that he was present wearing a couple of hats. He is a resident of the Merano subdivision at 245 Corte Sole. He said he is also an executive with the Avondale Corporation, the original subdividers of the Merano subdivision. He is also a member of the Mayer family at ti�e meeting to r�present the Trust in this application as the underlying fee owners of the site. He thought that Mr. Bartlett did an excellent job in describing the benefits of the program that Mr. Frandsen has proposed. He couldn't tell the Commission how heartedly he supported the project, but he wanted to address two specific issues. With regards to disclosure, in the original subdivision Avondale disclosed to each of the homeowners and made representations to them as to the contempiated use for this commercial project. They didn't talk with any specificity about Lucky, but in terms � of a proposed commercial use. They knew that would come with time 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 � � and made that representation to each of the original homeowners in the first phases of the development. They subsequently sold the residential development to Diamond West and they have continued to make that representation to each of their home buyers. With regard to the center itself, Mr. Carver spoke about what he believed was the appropriate way to insure that the transition of Lucky occurred in an organized and orderly fashion. He believed staff had come up with a solution to that by identifying the proposed tenant for the existing Lucky store and conditioning the permit on that approval at a later date. He reminded Commission that Mr. Carver had this property under contract from March of 1995 through December of 1995 for purposes of developing a similar center. They worked closely with Mr. Carver during that time when he originally intended to put Lucky's at the same location. With regards to the overall project, he appreciated the work Mr. Frandsen has done and thought he has worked hard to satisfy the various homeowners and their needs in the Merano subdivision. MR. DARYL HOOVER, 18-131 Von Karman Street in Irvine, stated that � he is the builder/developer of Diamond West homes. He said he would be addressing the Commission as builder of the Merano home community which they bought from Avondale in June of 1997 and as a member of the Board of Directors of the homeowners association. To answer the question that was posed on the mathematics of the community, he said the development would have 127 lots of which one site was a well site, so there would be 126 homes. Of the 126 homes 78 were sold. Not all of them were occupied yet. That left 48 homes unbuilt and many of which were unsold. In their role as a builder at Merano, one of the first questions they asked of Avondale in June when they were looking to acquire the project was what would happen at the corner. It was zoned residential and they had the opportunity to go into a negotiation to buy that as a residential site since it was zoned residential. After they did their due diligence, they felt it was not an appropriate site on which to build residential. It was a real cornerstone at the corner of Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert. The offramp at Monterey was key to that being a major transportation corridor and so was Country Club at that intersection. He said he hadn't seen the traffic study, but he knew it was a major intersection and they felt it would be inappropriate for residential housing, whether it was low � density or high density. They were not interested in buying that � 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 r..► property. The next question was what their proposal would be in the future. The Avondale Corporation said they had disclosed to all their buyers, which he checked out, and that disclosure said that the corner of Monterey and Country Club is zoned residential and that it is proposed in the future as a commercial center. All of their homeowners have signed a disclosure under Diamond West and he said all of the homeowners under Avondale had also signed it previously. They felt that disclosure was important. As they said to the Avondale Corporation when they bought the property, they had no financial interest in that center whatsoever, their only interest was in Merano, the community. They told Avondale that they could either be a great ally or they would be their worst nightmare in the development of that center. He said not to take them lightly because they now represented 126 future homes on what would be done with that site if it goes to a commercial use. In the last three years, he and his senior staff have built 7700 homes in the western states. They have done a lot of homes next to commercial centers and have been an advocate of a few and gone the other way with many others. They take their job very �'"" seriously when they are building and they were in there to sell homes and they wanted something to be an asset to their home building sales program. When the deveiopers came to them a few months ago and started talking about what they wanted to do, they were very deliberate, very concerned and he thought the word was passed on to them not to take these people lightly, the Merano homeowners, the builder, etc. He thought they had done a great job at going through this process and with all the homeowners and the meetings they have had. With that many people there would be a difference of opinion, which was represented tonight. What was important was there were 12 homes immediately on the perimeter of this commercial site. One of their employees, Michael Carle who addressed the Commission earlier tonight, was going to close escrow in less than 30 days and he is the first buyer to close adjacent to that site. He knew it better than anyone and has expressed his views tonight. But they needed to also stand up and be counted for the other 1 1 homeowners that are immediately there that they have not sold homes to yet. He could tell Commission that they believe as a builder and selling to those other homeowners land there were a total of 48 more homes to be sold) that they would be advocating that commercial development as the asset that they believe ,� it to be or they would be opposing this project in great numbers. He 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 � .nf believed it is an asset to Merano and will heip property values and that it will add to the quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood. When they look at the truck issue and the lowering of the property, the sound buffers, and the berms, their homeowners would have a beautiful landscaped berm with night lighted paims trees lining their backyards instead of looking at roofs of other houses if it was residential or just black sky. He felt it was a great asset and when talking to some of the Deep Canyon residents, a lot of people like the fact that the center is there and they can walk around the corner and get their groceries. The pharmacy would also be an asset to their homeowners. He suggested that Commission move forward and approve this plan. Out of the 78 homes sold, more than half of those residents are second home residents. They didn't have the luxury of being here on a weekday and many were out of state. He thanked the Commission for their consideration. Chairperson Campbell asked the applicant for rebuttal comments. Mr. Bartlett said he made it clear in all the correspondence to the J homeowners, because not all of them attended the meeting and he didn't expect them all to, and not all of them signed the letter he helped generate with the conditions and didn't expect them to, but he did make it clear that he was available by phone and had a sign on the corner of the property and thought he made it clear to everyone that if there was a concern, they should call him. He got the feeling tonight from some of the residents that wasn't the case. There was an issue brought up about rodents, vermin and trash. He said that all of the refuse, with the exception of the cardboard boxes, were interior to the loading dock to the market. It didn't go outside. The only thing removed from the premises of the market to the outside were the cardboard boxes that contain a lot of the food and there was a trash compactor that would compact them for recyclables. There was a lot of discussion tonight about garbage, vermin, rodents, etc., and if one would look at the Deep Canyon site and drive through the truck tunnel, they would not see garbage. That didn't happen. Secondly, there was a comment about diesel fumes on Monterey. Monterey is the most traveled north-south artery in the desert. He couldn't change that. There were currently trucks delivering food items to Lucky on the southeast corner and they would continue to do so. He couldn't address diesel fuel and the wind � 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 +�.. which did blow in that direction. He thought that would continue to happen whether the center was built or not. That was a major truck access route from the freeway. Another issue was the truck tunnel. Some were in favor and some were against. Their sound engineer felt it was a detriment to the mitigation of the sound issue. Some of the residents that planned to live right behind it feel it is a detriment, others didn't. He said that was a tough decision for the Commission to make. He noted there was a comment from the gentleman who owns the corner house regarding views of the mountains. He did attend the original meeting and they hadn't had a chance to really discuss with him and show him drawings relative to how the berm would come down on a three to one slope to meet grade at his location, but he believed they could spend some time and show him how that would not affect his view. There was another issue regarding the entrance and exit, It was actually staff's design from the beginning to have the market enter and exit off Via Scena. There was currently a driveway cut into that commercial site and it was always envisioned as that. They agreed not to have access into the site and have designed a pork chop shape so ""' that a car could not physically go onto Via Scena, make a U-turn and then get back into the center. That couldn't physically happen if the design of the pork chop was correct. As far as exiting, the only reason they somewhat demanded an exit onto Via Scena was for traffic headed eastbound on Country Club. The only way they could get eastbound would be to go to a signalized intersection. He also felt the signalized intersection not only helped their center, the residents at Merano, but also the existing center because it provided cross traffic and a safe ingress and egress for the residents. When they come out of there now, they have to dash across Country Club to head eastbound. He felt that was a benefit to them as well, but wanted to make it clear that staff did not initially recommend restricting that access in any way, but they agreed to make it an exit only and quite frankly if they were located in the shopping center and were headed west bound, it would seem to be a lot easier to take one of the exits in the direction they were going rather than back up, go through Via Scena and go through the signal and then turn back. Going eastbound, the only way to go east bound would be to come out at the signal. He didn't think there would be a huge amount of traffic going that direction, but certainly some would. Mr. Bartlett pointed out the exit locations on Monterey �, and didn't feel the Monterey traffic would be impacted, but they needed 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 " � some means to bring customers back to east bound locations. He thought that covered most of the issues brought up. The rumor about a low income apartment complex, he couldn't say where that came from but it is zoned multifamily, seven units to the acre. He doubted someone would want to build a high end residential development there but didn't know whether it would be low income. He couldn't really respond to that rumor. He asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Beaty asked how many semi diesel burning tractor trailer trucks he would expect. Mr. Bartlett replied that the sound engineer said one per day. Commissioner Beaty noted that there would be a large number of smaller van type trucks. Mr. Bartlett agreed and believed they had eight to ten smaller trucks like the van trucks that carry the bread, potato chips and that kind of thing. � � Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked the Commission for comments. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was opposed to the project because there were too many uncertainties and too many unknowns. While Plaza de Monterey might need a face lift, they had no concrete plans nor did they have an acceptable replacement tenant that Sagewood homeowners would be pleased with. They don't know what the use would be and while EDAC was hopeful that there would be a long term lease, all of that was up in the air. She was glad that they removed the Carl's Jr. proposal. There was also uncertainty regarding the tunnel. She didn't like the idea of the trucks going in front of the store. There was uncertainty of what would be on Pads A and B. She felt that Mr. Kaplan made a compelling statement and agreed with Mr. Carver that they were putting the cart before the horse. They already have one vacant Lucky's store now and she thought they needed to get some plans firmed up before proceeding. Commissioner Beaty said he would concur with Commissioner Finerty for the large part, however, he was not totally opposed to the project. He thought the project had merit. He didn't feel there was any question that this site was � 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 � destined for commercial use as he stated when the property was divided and when Merano was isolated from it. However, there are too many things that are uncertain. He was confused about the truck tunnel and he wouldn't want to make a decision tonight. Not until they have an opportunity for staff to review the noise study and as a person who lives east of the property, if they didn't have some way for him to go east, they would never see him in that center. He thought they were stuck and needed a traffic signal with the possibility of a left turn on that one exit. He would be in favor of a continuance this evening until some of those questions were looked into and the other troubling thing was that they were presented by the developer the glowing report of how everyone in there loves the project, but there were signatures from 15 people or more who aren't in agreement totally and he thought they needed some more time to meet with those people to come to some sort of a resolution. He felt for sure that the property would go to commercial at some time in the future, but there were probably ways to come to a more agreeable resolution. Commissioner Fernandez concurred with Commissioner Beaty. There were a "" lot of concerns from the Merano community. He felt that Mr. Bartlett did a great job in going through the whole project, but he was still concerned about the issues expressed by the residents. He was not totally opposed to the project but he sincerely heard those concerns. Regarding the diesel fumes, he knew there would be more than one diesel truck visiting the site. From experience there would probably be five or six. That was how he felt at this time. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was in favor of the project and application. There were some open issues that haven't been fully resolved yet and he didn't have a problem with continuing the matter to give them an opportunity for some of those issues to be resolved. In general he was in favor of the project. He was on this Commission when they didn't have homes there and when the whole thing was vacant and they discussed all of these issues. Since then the Commission has approved two commercial developments for that corner. This would be the third one. He felt commercial development is appropriate for that corner and from what he understood, all residents were made aware from the beginning that a commercial use was likely to go there. Some of the concerns about the fallout ' and impacts from such commercial development were certainly warranted, but �„ there had been good attempt made here to mitigate those concerns and he 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 � r.r thought some of those mitigation measures would be effective. He felt there was some fine tuning that needed to be done, i.e., tunnel or no tunnel. If the noise study turned out to be legitimate (and staff would have a chance to study it) the no tunnel solution would probably make the most people happy. He didn't think they would end up with everyone being 100% happy with what would ultimately go in there, whether it was this shopping center or high density residential, or whatever ended up there. It would eventually be something and he could guarantee that not everyone would be happy with what goes in. This was an opportunity to create something that would at least be acceptable to most people once it is built. There was no avoiding the negative impacts of increased development. They were in a real estate boom time and he has been listening for ten years to people say it wouldn't be as quiet as when they first moved in. They would be hearing that for the next 50 years. They were right. It wouldn't be as quiet, it wouldn't be as pollution free, it wouldn't be as noise free, and it wouldn't be as odor free. There was no avoiding that. The community was growing. What they did have an opportunity to do was control that growth and mitigate those negative impacts and he felt that with this development they were doing some of that. He was � concerned about the "dark" period Mr. Carver referred to and he felt that '� condition numbers 19 through 21 needed to be worked on. He asked Mr. Smith to work on those conditions to perhaps provide some guarantee that the dark period in the existing center wouldn't exceed six months and that maybe there would be some financial penalties or some other kinds of repercussions. He felt that was what Mr. Smith was successfully trying to get at, but maybe they could pen it down a little more to specifically state that in the event there is a dark period, meaning no tenant in the existing Lucky's facility for a period exceeding six months, there would be some kind of penalties or better yet, maybe rearrange the time scheme to assure that. He didn't know if the extreme recommended by Mr. Carver was appropriate where Lucky's was forced to not even begin construction until the new tenant was done with theirs, but maybe there was something in between. He was in favor of the project and felt it would end up making most people happy, not just the Merano residents but the Sagewood residents, the Palm Desert community and Rancho Mirage community in total. He had no problem with a continuance to maybe give it one more opppportunity to try and win a few more people over �n to insure that they come up with the best possible product for that site. Chairperson Campbell concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. She was also ' in favor of the project and as they all know, commercial was the only possible � � 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 � solution for that corner. She felt that some of the problems before them tonight could be resolved and she was in favor of a continuance depending upon how much time the applicant needed. Two weeks or a month. She felt that quite a few of the problems could be resolved in that time. Mr. Bartlett said they would like to accept a continuance for two weeks. MR. HOWARD JONES, 263 Corte San Marco, stated that he was somewhat concerned that the assumption is that commercial meant a gigantic grocery store and other such services. Commercial can mean other things that would offer a great deal less impact on the community. Chairperson Campbell said it could, but this was the application before the Commission. Mr. Jones said he wasn't aware of any other proposal, but felt it didn't necessarily have to mean this particular application. �r Chairperson Campbell concurred. Before making the motion, Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant felt two weeks, meaning the meeting of June 16, was sufficient time. He said he would hate to bring all these people back only for another continuance. Mr. Bartlett said they would try and set up meetings this week and try to make as many people as possible happy. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing Case Nos. GPA 97-6, C/Z 97-1 and PP 97-12 to June 16, 1998 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). Mr. Hargreaves recommended that the public hearing be reopened and continued also. Chairperson Campbell reopened the public hearing. Commission concurred. Commissioner Beaty noted that he would definitely not be at the June 16, 1998 meeting, nor would Commissioner Jonathan. He felt that might be a �� problem. 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 a :� ..� Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Bartlett would like a continuance to July 7, 1998. Mr. Bartlett concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, amending the motion to continue Case Nos. GPA 97-6, C/Z 97-1 and PP 97- 12 to July 7, 1998 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. DP 12-79 Amendment - HAHN/PALM DESERT, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and amendment to a Development Plan for a 172,562 square foot expansion to the Palm Desert Town Center and 956 space single level parking deck. Project involves additional retail space, 2,200 seat theater expansion and elimination of ice rink and child care facility. Project located on property generally bounded by Highway 1 1 1 , ' Monterey Avenue, Town Center Way and Rancho Grande Drive. � �.�i Chairperson Campbell noted that the applicant requested a continuance to June 16, 1998. She asked if anyone wished to address the Commission regarding this item. There was no one. Mr. Drell said that basically the project involved construction of a single deck parking structure on the back of the center. One thing staff didn't have was the engineering or elevations to show the Commission what it would look like. If residents wanted to leave their names or phone numbers, as soon as the information was received he would give them a call so they could come down and look at them. He felt that residents on Rancho Grande would be most affected by the parking structure. He said there were time constraints on the process conveyed to staff by the applicant and continuance to July would be a problem. He said they would try and make due with three commissioners on June 16. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that was up to the Commission. The applicant wasn't present to express that desire and he would like the project continued to July 7. They have waited 12 years to address the parking problem and in his opinion he felt they could wait another two weeks. Chairperson Campbell asked if he would like to make that a motion. Mr. Drell said that if the applicants were at they meeting they would stand up and say � 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 �. they had financial constraints. Commissioner Jonathan felt that if those constraints were serious enough they should have been at the meeting. He didn't feel this project would hinge on two weeks. Speaking for himself, he would like to participate and beyond that he felt they would be better serving the community with a!I five commissioners present to give input. He asked if the public hearing needed to be opened before he made a motion to continue the public hearing. Chairperson Campbell noted that no one wanted to address the Commission at this time. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing DP 12-79 Amendment to July 7, 1998, by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. TT 28846 - WINMAR PALM DESERT, LLC, AND GL LAND HOLDINGS, Applicants ""'' Request for approval of reconfiguration and expansion of 12 lots to create 15 lots north and east of Wikil Place within "Mountains at Bighorn". Mr. Joy noted that this was probably one of the most subdivided pieces of property within the city and now they were getting ready to build. He said this appeared to be the final lot configuration for this area and as he mentioned in the staff report, with the creation of 15 lots they would still be well within the limit of the number of lots that could be developed within Bighorn Golf Club, which was now being referred to as the Mountains at Bighorn. A similar subdivision occurred across the fairway approximately one year ago and there was some opposition. This time some of the opposition were actually applicants in the case. Staff hadn't heard any complaints and the project still met all the minimum lot standards and setback requirements. Staff recommended approval and asked for questions. There were none. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. BOB ROSS, RBF Engineering, 74-410 Highway 1 1 1 in Palm Desert, ,`, stated that he is the engineer for the Bighorn development. He felt this 37 MINUTES . PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 .ri was a simple resubdivision of an area that has been subdivided two previous times. They were increasing the density slightly from 12 lots to 15 lots which was in keeping with the density agreement they have had with the City for a number of years. He asked if there were any questions. There were none. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the Commission in FQVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for Commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1865, approving TT 28846, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. ..i F. Case No. RV 98-2 - GARDEN HEPBURN, Applicant Request for approval of a permit to allow the parking and storage of a nine foot high by 21 foot long recreational vehicle in the front yard of the residence located at 72-915 Skyward Way. Mr. Alvarez noted that photographs and a site plan of the site were on display. He stated that the request was to park a recreational vehicle in the front yard of 72-915 Skyward Way. In the ordinance attached to the staff report, the ordinance allows RVs to be parked in the front yard when they are not able to be physically parked along the side yards. In this instance, the RV was prevented from being parked in the side yard due to the overhangs on the west side of the house and a gas meter was located on that same side. The applicant was proposing to screen the RV as required by the ordinance with a minimum of six foot screening on all four sides. The site plan shows the west side screened with existing ten foot oleanders that run the full length of the RV. On the east side the applicant proposed six foot lattice wood screening with landscaping and in the front and rear solid six foot fences or gates to allow access. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the request on April 28 and voted 5-0 that the landscaping was adequate and �j 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 i.. compatible with the existing residence as prescribed by the ordinance. A couple of letters were received in opposition and were included in the Commission packets. As required by the ordinance, Mr. Alvarez felt the application met all the ordinance requirements for RVs and recommended approval, subject to the conditions imposed by the Architectural Review Commission. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty noted that according to the April 28 Architectural Review Commission meeting minutes there were commissioners absent. Mr. Alvarez reviewed the minutes and agreed. He said Commissioners Gregory, Urrutia and Van Vliet were absent. Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. GARDEN HEPBURN, 72-915 Skyward, said he would answer any questions the Commission had. He felt everything was explained thoroughly. He read the letters in opposition and if he needed to make `" comments he would be happy to. He said he also took some photographs. One of the letters talked about bringing down the high standards of the neighborhood. He agreed there were high standards and he was proud of the neighborhood too. Mr. Hepburn said when he bought this house nearly four years ago there were all sorts of RVs and construction of this sort and he was trying to comply. There was one right across the street from him. The Architectural Commission were concerned that right directly across the street from the RV is just another big row of hedges like his. He took some photographs to show the Commission. Chairperson Campbell asked to see them. Mr. Hepburn said there were also addresses of homes that have similar things. He showed the Commission pictures of his home and RV and where he proposed to put it along side the hedges. He showed what the neighbors would be looking at. He pointed out the homes to the east and west. He noted that at one point it would be impossible to screen the view of the RV. Two of the letters he didn't receive until last Saturday and he was told the cut off date was the fourth. He � showed Commission what Mrs. Spiegel would be looking at from her 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 ;� .� backyard and felt the RV wouidn't be visible to her. He said there was another objection from people that live in Nevada. That was one of the later letters that came in last Saturday. He walked up to Alamo and Bel � Air to the house on the southwest corner and those people live in Michigan and he and his wife talk to them all of the time. Across the street was an empty lot. On the other corner there were very nice people and they had a big boat in their driveway and he thought they probably had the same problem. It was now gone although the trailer was still there. The other lot was a bunch of units and a kind of cactus farm. They say they live somewhere in Nevada and they don't want a couch on his front lawn or something like that--he didn't know what they were talking about. He stated that all of the RVs in the pictures, or most of them, were in very good taste and most of the homeowners didn't want to build something in their front yards that would bring down their own property values, much less their neighbors'. He said all of the photographs have addresses and were all on Somera Road. The other letter he hadn't referred to yet was from the Cosgroves. There was a picture of their house and directly across the street was the same � thing he would like to build. There was no RV in it right now, but the fact that no RV was in one of these things didn't mean it wouldn't be there. The site was built and he would build something a lot better than that. He said there were also brand new homes on Bel Air and several of them have RVs that meet the ordinance. They were visible from the street, maybe even more so than his would be. In the local paper he received it said how many of the people who moved to Palm Desert came here with an RV and a lot of them have them and want to store them on their lots because it is a tremendous convenience. As he understood it the ordinance has been in place for a long time and it was just recently that Sacramento or some ruling in the state courts allowed the City to now enforce that ordinance. He was trying to comply and make everyone happy. 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 and Chairperson Campbell asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Finerty stated that she agreed with the letters in wanting to : preserve the high standards of the neighborhood. She believed RVs should be � stored in a facility. She called Palm Desert Self Storage on Joni Drive in Palm � 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 � Desert and they have RV slabs available sized ten feet by 40 feet which would accommodate Mr. Hepburn's RV and the cost would be S70 per month. She believed that was a small price to pay to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood. Commissioner Fernandez concurred with Commissioner Finerty. He felt guidelines had to be kept and they needed to go back to staff and ask some questions about allowing motor homes to be parked outside of homes. That was his concern. Commissioner Jonathan basically concurred with the comments made. He said that in the pictures, many of the RVs were parked in the side yard or rear yards and he thought that was the basic intent of the ordinance when it was created and yet they allowed certain exceptions when a side yard area was not available such as in Mr. Hepburn's case. He felt that in the few times the Commission allowed that, it caused problems and dissention and it was never a good solution. He concurred with the comments and at the same time said he would like this ordinance revisited for two reasons. Number one, it left the "" issue open and not too frequently, but regularly, they have these matters before the Commission and the ordinance was ill equipped to deal with it. The second reason for revisiting the ordinance was because he believed it was a misuse of the Commission's time and potential contribution to the city to deal with individual RV neighborhood issues. He suggested RV parking being handled at the staff level with ARC having final say. He thought it was a misuse of this particular resource. That wasn't directly related to this application, but it was an opportune moment to request that they in some way set in motion a revisit of this particular ordinance. Commissioner Beaty said he was in concurrence, unfortunately, and he had some sympathy for the situation and didn't know if there was any chance that the house eaves or gas meter could be relocated. He suggested that as an option. Chairperson Campbell concurred with her fellow commissioners. She felt if the RV was parked in the side yard or in the rear yard it would be fine, but would be an eyesore in the front yard. With the chain link fence and the slats it wouldn't be adequate coverage and concurred with Commissioner Jonathan � to go ahead and request that they instruct staff to review the ordinance. She ,� recommended a motion to that effect also. Otherwise they would have a lot 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 ; � of these before them for review. Commissioner Jonathan suggested doing that under the Miscellaneous section of the agenda. Commission concurred. Mr. Hepburn asked to readdress the Commission. He said he didn't intend to argue, but stated that he was encouraged to file this application. There were so many RVs by him and asked if the Commission would do anything about the ones that are already there and that he looks at. He felt that some were done in poor taste and he didn't intend to use chain link. The Architectural Commission suggested certain things and he agreed with each and every one of them. He felt it would be completely out of view. He said if they were RV or boat owners and were sympathetic to boat owners and RV owners, they knew what it was like to have something like this stored where it couldn't be serviced. Regarding paying S70, he was retired and his RV was a lot more important to him than any golf course. He said that he listened to markets and hotels for two and a half hours and wished the Commission could expedite the matter because they would be getting a lot of these requests. � .ri Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Alvarez what could be done about the other RVs that are there. Mr. Alvarez said there were quite a few that needed to be addressed. Mr. Drell informed Commission there were already four or five about ready to go before Commission. Right now the only ones going before Commission are the ones in front yard areas. If the RV is parked in the side yard or rear yard and were behind a six foot fence, a permit wasn't required. This ordinance was created for the express purpose of providing a method for people to park them in the front yard. What he was hearing was that the Commission was disinclined to approve any in the front yards, other than in very exceptional circumstances. Chairperson Campbell concurred. Mr. Drell said that if that was the case, staff shouldn't hold out the hope to these people and make them go through the process of making application. He noted there is an appeal process to the City Council. They have been struggling with this ordinance for 20 years and there had been times when they weren't prohibited in the front yard. In the past they determined that in some cases it would be a hardship on some people if they completely prohibited them. If they went back to that by saying people just couldn't do it, then that would take the Commission and staff off the hook on making any decisions on these requests but it wouldn't make a lot of the RV owners happy. � 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 � Mr. Hepburn said that all of the houses across the street from him are setback 15 feet and his house is setback almost 36 feet. Ali the houses on his street are set back that far. He said he would have been happy to go along the side of the house and would have done that too and rthey probably wouldn't be here. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion from the Commission. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, denying the request and instructing staff to revisit the ordinance. Commissioner Jonathan spoke to the motion and stated that he would be more comfortable if the matter of revisiting the ordinance could be done under Miscellaneous so that it isn't tied into this action. Commission concurred and amended the motion to deny the request and instructed staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting on June 16, 1998. Motion carried 5-0. '� Commissioner Beaty reiterated to Mr. Hepburn that there is an appeal process to the City Council and staff could help him with that. Mr. Hepburn said since he has gone this far he might as well. Mr. Drell said that after the next meeting when the resolution is adopted after that time Mr. Hepburn could file the appeal form with the City Clerk. The fee would be S50 and it would be scheduled for the first council meeting in July. Mr. Hepburn asked the Commission if they could tell him if it was worth his time. He said that because of staff he ran around all over town taking pictures over a "stinking" RV. Mr. Drell said that was his choice to make. Mr. Hepburn asked if there was any point in continuing to pursue this. Mr. D�ell said Mr. Hepburn had the choice of either moving his RV into storage or at least pursuing the appeal to its ultimate conclusion. v 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � JUNE 2, 1998 � � � Mr. Hepburn asked if he would get ticketed in the mean time. Commissioner Jonathan said he wouldn't expect any enforcement action until the matter had been resolved, particularly if Mr. Hepburn chose to appeal to the City Council. The Commission's decision would be made when it comes before them at the next meeting and then at that time Mr. Hepburn would have the right to appeal the decision. They couldn't vote on it yet because they didn't have the denial resolution before them. Mr. Drell further explained that after June 16 Mr. Hepburn would have 15 days to appeal that decision. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that if Mr. Hepburn wanted the pictures he submitted back since they had the addresses on them, he could pick them up before he left. G. Case No. CUP/PP 96-28 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of special building height and setback ; development standards for Lot Nos. 1 1 and 14 of Tract 28450 p located in the southeast quarter of Section 4, R6E T5S, generally ■rr known as the Desert Willow South Course. Mr. Drell indicated the Commission had a memo from the City Manager and basically it came to staff's attention after the approval of the Intrawest project and the tract map creating the various parcels within the south golf course that in both cases those properties on the south side of Montecito were omitted from the mailing list and those property owners were not informed of the details of the design of the golf course or the general discussion, other than what they might have picked up from the news media. As a result of that the City Manager went out and met with them and there were some concerns about prospective development on that property. The City Manager proposed some prospective development conditions that would apply to the future development of those developable parcels created in that map within the south course. Mr. Diaz was present to discuss the issues and how the conditions came about. Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public hearing and asked Mr. Diaz to address the Commission. ` � � � � � 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 +�.. MR. RAMON A. DIAZ addressed the Commission and stated that what Mr. Drel( indicated was accurate. The property owners in the Montecito development that were adjacent to lots 1 1 and 14, which is golf course area, did not receive a notice of those hearings. Subsequently, in March they contacted the City. At that poini the mass grading was being done and there was a great deal of concern regarding time limits to design the golf course and when it had to be delivered and the planning and drawings that had already been done. They found that out when they met with residents, who were quite reasonable. They were attempting to establish a set of development standards or guidelines when that particular area comes before Commission for public hearing for its precise plan to build there and to create some standards that would mitigate from the outset the concerns that the residents would have and their principal concerns involved privacy and views. The four standards that they reached consensus on were: 1) landscaping along the golf route. Immediately south of Montecito they would have material and placement that would not unduly impact views and the way this was to be done was the landscaper would have the plans and "'� would work with the adjacent residents in identifying where the landscaping would be. They were also concerned about stray golf balls and would use natural protection, but at the same time continue to have the views. 2) No unit would be parallel to the south boundary of the Montecito development within 300 feet of the Montecito residential development. Mr. Diaz explained that the reason these sounded kind of repetitious within each one was because he wanted to make it very clear so no one could come back later and say the intent was something different. In this case they didn't want any units that would be parallel to the Montecito units but they could be perpendicular or at an angle. In that way the views would not be blocked and the privacy could be assured. 3) Within 400 feet of the Montecito development units would be no higher than 24 feet above the original grade. The grade on this site was increased so that by having this condition, there would not be an impact from increasing grade because the height would be measured, if it was higher than 24 feet, from the original grade. 4) Prior to the submittal of any tentative tract map, development plan or other City approvals, the prospective developer shall meet with the Montecito Homeowners Association to discuss their proposed project. Mr. Diaz stated that when he met with the residents he apologized for them not � receiving notice and staff had made internal changes. Mr. Drell 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION , JUNE 2, 1998 � immediately instituted internal changes to make sure that this didn't happen again and he said he didn't want to take any shots at the private sector, but the public sector would make sure that we receive proper mailing labels. Mr. Diaz indicated to the residents that staff would be here and we get paid whether a development is approved or not, so we are very concerned that the residents be notified. Obviously, if they weren't notified the first time they would be skeptical about being notified in the future. Mr. Diaz stated that the biggest guarantee he could give them was that on a Thursday night, he didn't want them here under Oral Communications telling the City Council, "Hey, we didn't get notified again." In order to also give some assurances to them, these development standards would be placed on the development and the developer would adhere to them unless, of course, there was an agreement between the impacted homeowners and the developer as they go through point number 4. The owner of the property at this point is the Redevelopment Agency and there are agreements with IROC on this parcel and RDA indicated a concern in a letter to the Commission asking for a 30 day delay so that they could � analyze these impacts. He indicated that he would not recommend that � for the reason that he felt they should proceed at this point. However, the Commission also had a letter from Mr. Bob Grimes, who was one of the property owners who was impacted, however, he was not able to attend the meetings and that letter to the Commission indicated that he would like to request that the Commission go and stand on the raised part of the site in question and look down into their rear yards so that way they could see it first hand. He said some residents were here and they might want to address that because it was their wish to have the Commission go out there and look at this and if they would not have a problem waiting 30 days, then he would not have a problem recommending a continuance to the Commission. He emphasized that nothing would be built on those sites without a public hearing before Planning Commission and it would be a noticed and notified public hearing. Right now nothing was going to happen, but he wanted to say that if the matter is continued for 30 days, that item number one be implemented. That is that the landscaping along the golf course, and it was his understanding that the landscaper has been told to do this when they approach this area, to make sure that the property owners ; are notified and their opinions taken into account. Basically that was � why he was at the meeting tonight and why he felt compelled to make � 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 ,�. this staff report. He again apologized to those residents that didn't receive the proper notice and assured them that the City has changed it process and procedure so that it wouldn't happen again. He thought they could work this situation out in the Palm Desert style and doing what it takes to allay everyone's concerns. He asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Grimes agreed with the four development standards outlined in Mr. Diaz's memo. Mr. Diaz said he would have to let Mr. Grimes answer that question. He was not at the meeting. He believed that he did, but Mr. Grimes would have to speak for himself. Commissioner Jonathan said Commission had a copy of the memo from Mr. Ortega indicating that approval by IROC was required for any changes. He asked if that was the gist of the memo in addition to suggesting that the matter be continued for 30 days. �.. Mr. Diaz said that was correct. He said he didn't know if approval by IROC was necessary and it might be in terms of the development agreement, but in terms of the decision making capabilities of the Commission, they approve, not the applicant. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that any resulting changes to the mass grading were apparently subject to input or a review and approval of the developer, IROC. Mr. Diaz agreed that might very well be the case, but the bottom line was that if the Commission and Council didn't approve the project, then nothing would be built. There might be legal consequences and monetary consequences. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Diaz was there to make the Commission aware of this issue and to request a continuance. Mr. Diaz said no. If the property owners impacted did not have a problem waiting 30 days, he didn't. If he was in their position he ... wouldn't have a problem waiting 30 days because nothing could happen 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 = � rrt until then, but he promised them that he would bring this before Commission and he would make this recommendation. He said if they let him off the hook for 30 days, he wouldn't have a problem with it. It was their situation and they were the ones impacted. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. PETER LIPTON, 19 Taylor Avenue in Palm Desert, stated that he was one of the homeowners on the south side of Taylor Avenue. They had several meetings of all the homeowners on that south side of the street. All their.backyards face the proposed golf course development. They all bought their lots knowing that a golf course would be built there, but what some of them didn't know was that there was also a plan for some timeshares to be built on that site. They didn't expect these timeshares to be built on a man made mountain looking down into their backyards. They were not notified of any of the original plans and were not notified of the original hearings and when the grading was � started a couple of months ago for the golf course, they woke up one '�■+� day and found a 15 foot high mountain just behind their property lines and found out this was a site on which pads were going to be built for two story condominiums that would be sold as timeshares. He said his home would be the closest one to it at about 100 feet away from his fence to the condos. Those condos would be looking right down into his backyard into his glass doors into his living room, family room, backyard and pool area that they like to enjoy privately. Furthermore, their views were very important. All of their homes had nice views of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south and he felt that was the nicest feature of his home and was the reason he purchased that particular home. He thought other homeowners felt the same way. Elevating the site 15 feet and then building two stories on top of it had the potential of completely obliterating the view. They had no knowledge of this until the grading was done. They contacted the City about it and the City was very nice. Mr. Diaz came out and met with them several times and although the homeowners would like to see the grading go back to the way it was, they believed that the compromise they made of pushing the buildings back away from their homes would help preserve y their privacy and would help reduce the impact the building would have 5 on their view of the mountains to the south. He would like the � � 48 MtNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 ... conditions to be adopted. He was also concerned that when the building plans come up themselves that they be included in those discussions and be allowed input. They were concerned about the actual height, orientation and placement and that the buildings would all have an effect on their views and on their privacy. For himself he wanted to see it acted upon today, rather than waiting another 30 days and having to go through more appearances. Lastly, he spoke to Mr. Grimes who is his next door neighborhood and he was in favor of the conditions. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Diaz would like to readdress the Commission. Mr. Diaz asked Mr. Drell far clarification as to whether or not this item would go before the City Council since it involved a development agreement. Mr. Drell said one of the questions was what they are amending and basically `" they were just doing a resolution of intent of the Commission that if and when a precise plan cames before Commission, these conditions would be applied to it. As far as he understood it, this was not an amendment to the development agreement since that can't be unilaterally initiated. Mr. Diaz asked the City Attorney what needed to be done to make the conditions stick. Mr. Hargreaves stated that he wasn't familiar with the background of this particular item. He would need to go back and look at what has been done up to now or Mr. Diaz could explain that to him. He knew there was a development agreement in place and they have grading plans that have been issued. Mr. Drell agreed. He explained that the golf course was being constructed. Mr. Diaz recommended that Commission instruct staff to prepare a resolution amending the development guidelines conditioning the development agreement to include these guidelines and since this is an advertised pub(ic hearing and since the Council amends the deve(opment ` agreements, there would be another public hearing, so the resolution ,�, would be a recommendation to the City Council to adopt these 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 2, 1998 4 � .� development standards. That would be the first step, then they would have the public hearing and the development agresment would be formally amended by City Council. Mr. Hargreaves asked if the development agreement incorporated the development standards. Mr. Diaz said that the intention was that if anything was to be built on those lots, these development standards would be utilized for that development when they go through the public hearing process. If the property owners and applicant at that point cauld arrive at some agreement not to modify these, these would be the development standards or guidelines. He said that perhaps if the Montecito property owners agreed, a continuance of two weeks would be appropriate to allow the City Attorney to research it out and then come back because they didn't want to visit this one again. That was the intent. Mr. Hargreaves agreed that it should be looked at and brought back in two � weeks. ,rr Chairperson Campbell stated that the public hearing would be left open for a continuance of two weeks. She asked if staff needed to be directed to prepare a resolution. Mr. Diaz stated that staff would have a resolution for the Commission at the next meeting. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, by minute motion continued PP/CUP 96-28 to June 16, 1998. Motion carrisd 5-0. � � � rl1 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 +�r. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case Nos. CUP 97-16 and C/Z 97-13 (WALGREENS) Discussion regarding denial of the change of zone by City Council. Mr. Drell explained that the City's Zoning Ordinance, as it relates to ione change applications, states that for any City Council decision modifying a decision of the Planning Commission on changes of zone, the respective changes must be referred back to the Planning Commission for a report. The way it is written does not differentiate between a change and denial and denial is a change of recommendation of the Planning Commission. There were also other issues involved. Basically the Council was saying they intend to deny the change of zone and asked what Planning Commission thought about it. The Commission's report would be to either agree with Council or reaffirm the Commission's previous recommendation. Staff would also be amending the code section so it would refer to a case where they were actually changing the zone change, not denying one. As an example, if they were changing a "'� Planning Commission recommendation of R-3 to R-2, that would be something the Planning Commission could consider. In the future this action would not be required for a denial action by Council, but the way it was written now, it could be interpreted that the Commission has to respond back for a prospective denial. Mr. Drell's recommendation was that Commission either by minute motion reaffirm their previous decision with any comments they might want to make or modify their previous decision with any comments they might want to make. Chairperson Campbell stated that she had a copy of the minutes from the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. Dr. Lyons made a presentation to that Board on Tuesday, May 26, 1998 and they unanimously voted to endorse the project. Also, she had 21 signatures from the neighbors around the proposed Walgreens project ihat were in favor of a Walgreens. She said that a survey was made of all the homeowners around that area and all of them were in favor of it except one, Mr. Phil Witte, and there were only three homes where no one was present. Chairperson Campbell noted that Dr. Lyons was present and asked if the Commission had any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on staff's recommendation. Mr. � Drell explained that staff's recommendation to City Council at the Council's 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � JUNE 2, 1998 last meeting was if, in addition to any concerns they had about land use issues, they had architectural issues that influenced their decision, that they might want to get some input from the Architectural Commission. That motion wasn't approved. Commissioner Jonathan noted this was subsequent to the Council's denial of the application and Phil Drell advised the City Council that in this kind of a situation where Council modifies a decision of the Planning Commission with regards to zoning, they must refer it back to Planning Commission. That was why it came back now. Staff's recommendation was to report back to City Council with regards to some kind of clarification of Planning Commission's position. Mr. Drell concurred. He indicated that minutes of Council's May 14, 1998 meeting were provided so that Commission could glean the rationale for Council's denial and respond to any points that may have been made. Chairperson Campbell noted that there were some copies of the minutes from the Council provided and some of the comments. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a mechanism at this point for the Council to reconsider the matter as part of this process. Mr. Drell said there � might be. DR. GARY LYONS, 116 Menil Place in Palm Desert, informed Commission that the reason he wanted to speak this evening for the record was to mention a few issues that seemed to have arisen since the May 14 meeting of City Council where they were denied proceeding on a 3-2 vote. One of those issues had to do with misinformation or misconception during the discussion at the Council meeting that this project was originally an O.P. project in the Palma Village Plan and he said that was not the case. It was always commercial. Since they began discussions after the Palm Desert Core Commercial Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1987, he had taken this commercial development project before the Redevelopment Agency, EDAC, and on May 24, 1990 the City Council had two options in front of them. One was to rezone this property commercial on the recommendation of staff and the other was to zone it O.P. Council unanimously voted to zone this commercial, C-1 . That was in 1990. It was never zoned O.P., in contradiction to a comment that was made at the Council meeting. Regarding other comments that were made at ihat meeting, there was no denial of comments by two Council members that Walgreens was a � quality store, that it would be a wonderful store for Palm Desert to have � 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 �... and there was no statement made that Walgreens was not an appropriate store for Palm Desert. What was said was that there were concerns with traffic and those concerns that were voiced were more of a feeling or gut reaction in direct contradistinction to two traffic analysis studies that were done in preparation that he felt Commission was quite aware of. The other question that came up was there was no one that spoke against the architectural design. There was one Councilman who said it wasn't his favorite design but he did not rise to a level that he would not vote for it. One of the other Councilmen said it was a fine building, so they were left at that meeting without any direction that there was a concern of architectural design. They were left with a concern that there was a gut reaction that perhaps there would be more traffic in that area than should arise from this development in spite of the two traffic studies that indicated the opposite. He noted that earlier in the meeting there was at least a contemplation and a continued motion tonight for development of approximately a 1 ,000 car garage/parking places right across the street that appeared at this stage to be received favorably, a position that '�"' would dwarf this small project to an insignificant traffic impact. He just wanted to say that for the record and thanked the Commission for taking that into advisement. Commissioner Jonathan said he thought at one point there was an approved project that had a mix of O.P. on the second floor along with retail use on the first floor. Dr. Lyons said that was correct. In 1988-1989 they went before the Redevelopment Agency with a high end retail commercial complex. That was unanimously adopted. The following year they went through the Architectural Review Committee to meet their concerns and when that was completed they went before the Planning Commission in 1990 at which time they voted to make this 100% O.P. He then drafted a letter to the City Council, to Mr. Diaz at that time, and at the May 24 Council meeting they adopted a commercial complex which would be 50% commercial on the first floor and 50% office on the upper floor. Chairperson Campbell stated that she was still in favor of the project and wouldn't change her vote. t.. 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 S � Action: Commissioner Finerty stated that she would move to reaffirm the previous recommendation. Commissioner Beaty stated that he would enthusiastically second the motion. Commissioner Jonathan spoke to the motion. He stated that he would like to encourage the Council to reconsider the matter and would suggest that Commission go beyond just affirming their earlier vote, but to actually encourage the Council to reconsider the application. Also, if they still chose to deny it, which was within their right, he would like to get an understanding of what their intent is for that location so that Commission didn't stray far a field and go through a similar process only to have Council reverse the Commission's decision. He said this was only because he was puzzled. He thought that what was before the Commission was a completely appropriate use, not just in terms of what the Commission thought, but also what Council thought was appropriate for that corridor. He had been puzzled by their vote and if they still chose to deny it, he wanted to understand why. He asked if Commissioners Finerty and Beaty would consider amending the motion to: 1) encourage Council to reconsider the application; and 2) explain to the Commission their reasons for denial if they do deny it. Commissioner � Finerty said she would be happy to amend the motion. Commissioner Beaty �� concurred. Chairperson Campbell called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this would be on the Council's next agenda. Mr. Drell concurred. B. CONSIDERATION OF STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT ABANDONMENTS (VACATIONS) FOR: 1) THE PALM DESERT SUBDIVISION; 2) THE BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT; AND 3) FOR LATISHA LANE (SOUTH OF ROBIN ROAD). Mr. Drell noted that the Commission had the report and indicated that Mr. Greenwood was present to answer any questions. Mr. Greenwood indicated the staff report explained the request. He said that basically these were areas that have been dedicated in the past for various public uses. Surrounding development had now made them useless for any pub(ic benefit and the neighboring properties were requesting the use of that t property. He recommended that the properties be vacated to the original � owners. � .�1� 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 � Chairperson Campbeil asked if there were any questions for staff. There were none. She asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, determining that the subject abandonments are in conformity with the City's General Plan, by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS Chairperson Campbell asked if the Commission had an opportunity to review the changes. Mr. Drell felt they were revised to the Commission's satisfaction and asked for any comments. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Beaty thanked the City Attorney for showing the changes that had been made. That made it much easier for the Commission to see the revisions. ''"'•' Action: !t was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1866, approving revisions to the Palm Desert Planning Commission Bylaws. Motion carried 5-0. D. CONTINUED DISCUSSION (SEE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM F ABOVE) REGARDING AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO RECREATIONAL VEHICLES Mr. Drell felt the action should be to direct staff to initiate an ordinance amendment, but staff would need some direction. He asked how the Commission would like the ordinance amended. Mr. Hargreaves stated that since the matter was not formally on the agenda, the appropriate thing to do would be to direct staff to place it on a future agenda. He said that the other thing the Commission could do was to give comments individually regarding what they would like to see and staff could take that and run with it. There wouidn't be a formal action. � 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 A � � Chairperson Campbell said she would like it amended so that there wouldn't be RVs al(owed in front yards. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Mr. Drell said that would essentially eliminate the ordinance, but staff would put it on the next agenda for discussion as a Miscellaneous item. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it could be placed on the July 7 agenda. Mr. Drell said staff could do it any time Commission wanted. He noted that he thought there might be more RV cases on the next agenda since there were about five pending applications and didn't know when they were scheduled. For the process, they first send out notices that he would be making a decision. If there are any objections, the case immediately goes to Planning Commission. That is the way the ordinance is set up and typically they were often generated by complaints so they were pretty much assured of going before Commission. Chairperson Campbell said that perhaps the amendment would eliminate that. Mr. Drell said that the Commission could deny all requests, but this was a fundamental problem and it was hard to screen a ten foot vehicle with a six foot fence. They would talk about it next time. After discussion regarding scheduling Commission determined that the matter should be brought back on July 21 , 1998. .� � X. COMMtTTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (May 21, 1998) Commissioner Jonathan indicated there were two significant items discussed. There is a possibility of the Nevada Bob's golf store relocating to the site on Portola and Highway 1 1 1 next to Circle K. It might have a green area with a putting green on the corner and then a shared parking facility that would even provide additional parking on the alley for Circle K patrons. Mr. Drell explained that it was basically the same plan that was approved before for a restaurant but if it was going to be a retail store, there would be excess parking. They would reserve 12 spaces of the 38 and the rest would provide a public easement. Commissioner Jonathan said that Tim Bartlett just presented that to � EDAC as a conceptual plan. They also had a presentation by the Mall � � 56 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 a.. with regards to their plan and the Commission would get the details for that soon. He showed the Commission an illustrated chart showing the proposed changes to the site. The single story parking decks would add 760 parking spaces and more importantly would put the additional spaces in the area of highest demand. They apparently had close to the number of spaces needed, but they were located so far out people just didn't use them. This would not only add more spaces, but would put the spaces where they are needed. He said Commission would get more information at the Commission meeting on July 7. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) �r.. F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (May 21 , 1998) Chairperson Campbell informed Commission that ZORC discussed amendments to parking lot standards relating to implementing new landscaping standards for parking lots. It would allow compact car parking areas which we didn't have right now. The code requires parking spaces in commercial and office professional zones to be nine feet by 20 feet with a two foot overhang. The code also provided for compact parking spaces and staff was considering amending the ordinance to require that every third parking space be 16 and a half feet long plus a two foot overhang. This would widen the sidewalk from four feet to six feet so the cars could overhang two feet. This would allow more landscaping and shade in parking lots. X!. COMMENTS Commissioners Beaty and Jonathan announced that they would not be in attendance at the next meeting on June 16. They would both be out of the country. � 57 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1998 � � � XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting to June 16, 1998 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: , � /�/ � -o k..u�- � (.:_-t�_ �-t-� ONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson , Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm ( � � � 58