Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0316 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - MARCH 16, 1999 ,,� 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE � �. * «. � � .� * .� .� � �. .� ,► � .� � �. * � * � � * * �. � � .� � * * � � * ,� * � � * � ,� .� I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 7:00. 11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez `.. Members Absent: None Staff P�esent: Philip Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Martin Alvarez, Assistant Planner Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the March 2, 1999 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the March 2, 1999 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent March 1 1 , 1999 city council actions. v MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 ; A } � � VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 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. Case No. TT 29045 - LA PALOMA HOMES, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 4.29 ! acres into 15 single family lots located on the south side of .� Hovley Lane West 2,400 feet east of Monterey at 73-401 Hovley Lane West. Mr. Alvarez noted that exhibits for the tract map were on display. He explained that the property is located on the south side of Hovley Lane 2,400 feet east of Monterey. The project had a total of 4.29 acres and proposed to be subdivided into 15 single family tots. The tract map was consistent with the PR-5 zoning and was similar to many of the existing single cul-de-sac streets off of Hovley Lane. Lots sizes for the project consisted of a minimum of 9,148 square feet, an average size of 10,435 and a maximum of 1 1,761 square feet. Perimeter landscaping was approved by Architectural Review on February 23, 1999. Staff prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and recommended approval of the t�act map, subject to the conditions attached to the draft resolution. Chairperson Jonathan ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. WILLIAM POPE, Cathedral City, stated that he was representing the applicant and the project as noted consisted of 15 single family `� � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 +�.. dwelling units. There was a CVWD well site at the southeast corner of the property that was currently being drilled. The area around the tract to the east had been subdivided by the same developer, Mr. Dan Arthofer. Landscaping would be similar to the surrounding areas. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Arthofer was doing the same small tract on Hovley. Mr. Pope concurred and indicated that right now he had four model homes just to the east, on Avenida Rosario, that he was constructing. He also built the ones on Avenida Arcada and Hovley Court. Mr. Pope said that next door the property was subdivided into 16 lots and the one just to the east of that also. He had two of them, one of which was completed with 16 homes. Commissioner Campbell asked if the price range would be the same. Mr. Pope concurred. r�.. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Acti n: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1915, approving TT 29045, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Chairperson Jonathan stated that it was nice to see a project that was in complete compliance with the City's ordinances and weren't requesting any exceptions. �... 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 B. Case No. CUP 99-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT and CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY-SAN BERNARDINO, Applicants Request for approval of a Master Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit, and Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 971 1 1071) for the Coachella Valley Campus of the California State University-San Bernardino to be located on 204+ acres at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive, also particularly described as A.P.N. 653-420-016, 37-300 Cook Street. Chairperson Jonathan advised that he sits on the Advisory Board for the Coachella Valley Campus and he discussed that position with the City Attorney and they had both concluded that since there was no financial interest and since his objectivity for the overall welfare of the community at large was not impaired, there was no need for him to abstain on this matter. He asked for staff's report. � Mr. Drell explained that he would give a brief background and then turn it over � to the university folks for a report. The City purchased approximately 200 acres at Frank Sinatra Drive and Cook Street for the purpose of facilitating the construction of a Cal State campus. The commission was given a copy of the master plan which was the result of a committee made up of University representatives, the City and some citizen representatives. The process took about 18 months. They came up with a general description of the academic program and plan and a master plan of the potential layout of the university. He indicated that ultimately, pursuant to a DDA with the Redevelopment Agency who owned the land, the property would be conveyed to the university. Actual development would only begin once the property was conveyed to the university and once it was conveyed the university by law would no longer be subject to specific land use controls by the city. His understanding was that the future land use and the specific details of the architecture and siting of each phase would be the subject of an advisory committee made up of representatives of the City and University which would be advisory to the President. He explained that the purpose of this process was because a project of this scope needed an environmental impact report and in order to have an environmenta{ impact report there had to be a project. The project was defined as a conditional use permit. While the City still � owned the land, the City still had control, and in the zone a university or � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 �.. school was a conditional use. In addition to the report by the university representatives, also present was the consultant who completed the environmental impact report. The consultant's summary was distributed to commission. Dr. Peter Wilson was also present representing the university. For the record Mr. Drell stated that more than 300 legal notices were sent to residents of all the major residential developments in the vicinity and only 30 were returned as undeliverable, so most reached their destination. Staff also explained that the 300-foot radius was expanded to 500 feet. Chairperson Jonathan o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant for comments. DR. PETER WILSON, Dean of the Coachella Valley Campus of Cal State San Bernardino, addressed the commission and explained that also at the meeting was Mr. David DeMauro, the Vice President of Administration and Finance at the Cal State San Bernardino main campus and Mr. DeMauro was the Chair of the Master Plan Advisory Committee that Mr. Drell referred to earlier. Dr. Wilson gave the '�"" commission a brief background of the college's presence in the Coachella Valley and how they went about developing this campus. He indicated that they have been in the Valley since the mid 70's and they began offering external degree prog�ams in the Coachella Valley in 1976. An external degree program was one that was self supported-- there were no state tax dollars in it so they pay the full cost and it turned out to be better and was just about as expensive as a private school education if they did it that way. As a comparison that was what UCR was talking about doing in Cathedral City. If they went forward with the plan to open their extended university center, they would be offering classes without state tax support so they would be full cost. They have been doing that since 1976. In 1983-84 they were approached by the President of the College of the Desert to ask about COD becoming a state university because the area wanted a state university campus, a four-year collsge degree program, for a long time. They were told to talk to Cal State San Bernardino since their service area included aH of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, an area about the size of the state of Maine and populated about the same with tots of open space and concentrations of population. Eventually a branch campus opened in 1986 on College of the Desert property in a � construction trailer. They currently had about 800 students. They have 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 ; fi � � grown every quarter over the last two years. Normally enrollment was high in the fall and dropped down the next two but they have grown every single quarter the last two years which indicated the demand. In 1991 he talked to various people in the city to discuss establishing a permanent branch campus which was what they were doing and that resulted in November of 1994 the signing of an MOU between the City of Palm Desert and the Board of Trustee of the California State University System to develop on land the City would set aside a permanent branch campus. It was unique in their experience for a state institution to get into a private-public partnership because the challenge that the chancellor of CSU gave them was to build it and they would find the money to operate it. So they embarked upon a major capital campaign to raise the necessary money to build the branch campus. The Master Plan was completed in March of 1997. They started a capital campaign in June of 1998 and received the first building naming gift, which kicked them off in June of 1997, and that 53 million gift was from the Mary Stewart Rogers Foundation. Since then they have received an additional 5800,000 in commitments and had proposals out ' for around S2 million more. They continued to talk with people and � staged events to raise money to build the campus. This past April there was the R.D. and Joan Hubbard gift from the Hubba�d Foundation. Last June they received a commitment from the chancellor's office in Long Beach for the allocation of operation funds. That was the challenge-- build it and they would find the money to operate it. This year they received a one time allocation of 5380,000 to go into their budget in addition to what they had and that would go into the permanent base budget next year and they would grow from that. It was an important part of the ingredients in the elements of developing this campus that they need to have the operating money if they were going to build this building and they have gotten that commitment. They started the architect selection process in January. They have interviewed five candidates. A recommendation was made to the President on whom to appoint and they were waiting for that appointment to take place to finalize the DDA with the City on the transfer of the land. Once they had that in hand they would hire the architect and begin the schematics on the buildings. The DDA approval process began last April and they reached agreement taday on all the concepts that go into it and they just needed the attorneys to work out the final language. They wanted to do a CSU Board of Trustees agenda item in July that would include � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 � the EfR, DDA, the Master Pian and some changes in paperwork associated with non major capital programs in CSU to get themselves on that schedule. It was a housekeeping detail and if everything went the way they hoped and expected, in September 2001 or January 2002 at the tatest they would move in. When they started developing a master plan, they didn't want to just master plan the branch campus they wanted to master plan the whole university to build out what it might look like, realizing that master plans were just that. It was like the City's general plan that changed over time as needs emerged and they got a better idea of what they were doing and how they were doing it. The master plan would change, but at least it laid out the road pathways internally and the exits from the campus because it would also become the telecommunications hub for the campus and this would be a campus heavily invested in technology and telecommunications. They wanted to have a master plan for the 204 acres so they could make a determination of where the best place would be to put CVC. They didn't want the president of the campus and the senior officers 50 years from now wondering why they put CVC where ihey did. They `+ wanted the backup of the master plan. He showed the location of the initial 40 acres where they would put the branch campus up in the southwestern corner of that piece of property. There had been some discussion of finishing Cook so that when someone drives up into Palm Desert they would see finished landscaping. They would be starting the initial facilities with the associated parking and determining what would go into each phase and what they planned on doing was putting in three buildings to forrn the initial branch campus. That gave them an idea of how they planned to break the space out as they go along realizing they would have to be somewhat flexible but also understanding that they need offices, student union kinds of space, distance learning facilities, computer labs, a book store, etc., in the first phase. What they would also need to have were classrooms. They might end up moving the offices into one location and concentrating classrooms in another, but this would give them an idea of how this would break out in terms of square footage. They were currently operating out of about 8,500 square feet at the College of the Desert with 800 students. Next quarter they would be borrowing 12 classrooms from Palm Valley, Palm Desert Middle School and five classrooms from College of the Desert to keep themselves going. They were bursting out of the space they had �.. and they couldn't serve students adequately where they are so they 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 � � ..ri were exploring how to add classrooms on an interim basis. What they had planned here with the first facility would give them three times the space they have now. The second building and third building would add proportionately to it and they would end up with about 75,000 square feet that would be instructional space that would accommodate about 25,000 students when they were done. In the commission packets was a Coachella Valley Campus first building break down in terms of square feet and cost to give them a feeling of what they were looking at in terms of fund raising. The total project cost was about 51 1 .8 million and that cost was offset by the land the City was donating to the university plus some funds the University was putting in for parking, student union space, the bookstore and equipment. The bottom line was they had to raise nearly S8 million. They had 53.8 million now banked and needed 54.2 to finish it and he was confident they would get that 54.2 million over the next six to 12 months. He felt the uniqueness of the venture made it interesting. The opportunity to bring a university campus, initially a branch campus of San Bernardino and , ultimately a separate state university campus, CSU Palm Desert, to this � region was exciting and it would be something that would have untold good consequences for this area forever. This was not something like a business that would die out or go away. Education was never going to stop being needed, it would just increase and grow out over time. He asked for any questions. He appreciated the City taking responsibility for thP '"�R in ca�rying it through a�d he had enjoyed working with them. Commissioner Finerty noted that the EIR indicated that the proposed structures would be six stories high and there was concern because that would be one of the highest buildings in the city and asked how firm that was. She understood that once the property became the state's, that the City really had no say other than through the committee that would be formed to address these issues. She asked if Dr. Wilson could comment on the necessity for the six story structures. Dr. Wilson explained that the initial branch campus would be one story. The land where the campus was being located sloped so what would be seen from the road was one story. What they would see from the other side down the hill would be two stories because there would be ::� a drop off there. The discussions he had heard on how the campus � 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 �r.. would be built out over time was that they would never be in a position to block views because they would build up as they went down so there would be a situation where if they were at the top of Frank Sinatra, the tall buildings would not be at that location, they would be down toward the bottom. The acreage was about 192 acres based on a recent survey that took place. They were always operating on 204± but it was going to be 192. For a California State University Campus it was in the mid range as far as acreage was concerned. Acreage for CSU campuses ranged from 100 acres at San Francisco State where they were now in the process of tearing down ten story buildings to build higher so they could accommodate students to San Bernardino which had about 440 acres. There was a fairly broad spectrum. They were planning to take this campus to 25,000 full time students. The Master Plan also makes a commitment to educate only half that number on that site. The rest of them would be educated in other parts of the valley and other parts of the world. Whether or not they needed to go to the six story buildings would depend on the growth and how things went, but they would definitely be built down lower so they would see ''"" an increase in height as they go down the hill and it was quite a drop off. Commissioner Campbell asked if the buildings would go through the City's architectural review process. Mr. Drell thought that as part of the process of the advisory group, as an adjunct to that it would go through ARC mainly because it would give the process the ability to get the opinions of four or five top professionals in the valley in terms of the architecture. He thought it would still be the City's goal to have the ability to comment on the buildings, it was just that the final authority would be different. Dr. Wilson added that the state university was a state agency governed by the Education Code and state law. The Education Code prohibited the university from turning control of its destiny to any local jurisdictions or any other body but the university itself. In the DDA they had to work hard at staying away from words that implied control by some other agency but also allowed for clear consultation and taking into consideration the desires of the local community. The way they handled that was to come up with a body they called the University Planning Development Committee which would be a group made up of ` nine members, four appointed by the Mayor and City Council of Palm 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 � � .r Desert, four appointed by the President of the University, and one appointed jointly by the City Council and President and that would be the Chair. That group would review all plans for the development of the university property, architectural drawings, etc., and would take those th�ough a city process for consultation and comment in order to pass a document/plan out of that committee into the university process and two thirds of the members had to vote affirmatively. It was conceivable that a plan could get through that a majority of the community didn't care for but it was very unlikely because of the way it was structured and the review processes it had to go through. The fact of the matter was that the university was prohibited by state law from turning approval of its designs/developments over to local jurisdictions. They could not develop a campus here if that control language was there so they developed the mechanism to deal with it without having it. Commissioner Beaty asked if Dr. Wilson anticipated that at the completion of phase one they would have enough classroom space to accommodate the needs at that time or if they were already behind in building. � .ii Dr. Wilson felt that when they did the first phase and have the first facility up they would have sufficient room to accommodate the movement of the current operation to that site. They would have to construct the second building quickly to stay up with growth because he felt it would grow very rapidly once they moved. The other thing they were dealing with here was that 70°!0 of their classes currently occurred in the evening. The average age of their student body was 36. Most worked full time and had families. It was a very non traditional group. Their experience was that as they added degree programs, especially if they added them during the day which was what they were starting to do, they woufd begin to attract a younger clientele that coufd go during the day and would use the facility more effectively. Right now they were pressed in the evenings after 6:00 p.m. and they had no room. Chairperson Jonathan noted that Dr. Wilson mentioned the name Cal State University Palm Desert and asked if that would be a certainty at some point. Dr. Wilson stated that it was very clearly spelled out in the DDA that at � the point where the university indicates that it wants to change the � � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 �.. CVC status from a branch campus to an independent CSU campus, Palm Desert would be part of the name. There was no doubt about that at all and had their support--they had no argument with that at all. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that Dr. Wilson also mentioned that the DDA provided for a committee, a University Development and Planning Committee, and asked what would happen after the campus was essentially built out, if the committee would remain in existence. For example, if there was a driving range built in 30 years and lights were on after 10:00 p.m. and pointing the wrong way, if the City would have any ability to influence any of those kinds of possible occurrences. Dr. Wilson said he might have Mr. De Mauro address that because he was not as familiar with the main campus as he used to be, but at the home campus in San Bernardino there was a continual consultation process that takes place between the University and the City of San Bernardino, both on development that takes place immediately adjacent to the campus which was essentially City controlled and development '�r'" that happens on the campus itself, especially if it was going to affect the environment outside the campus. He asked Mr. De Mauro if that was an accurate statement. MR. DAVE DE MAURO, 7930 Buckhorn in EI Cajon, said that the main campus had an agreement with the City of San Bernardino and he felt it was just as important to be a good partner with the City as well as having the legal agreements. They did whatever they could to address any concerns of the City. As an example, they just went before the Board of Trustees to update the master plan for the San Bernardino campus up to 25,000 students and they were having the mayor come to address their Board of Trustees in favor of the p(an. Chairperson Jonathan unde�stood that the well-meaning intent was there and knew it was well meaning but as far as the committee itself, he asked if it terminated at some point when development was substantially complete. Mr. De Mauro said it had no termination or sunset clause so it should continue in perpetuity. i.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION , MARCH 16, 1999 � � � Chairperson Jonathan indicated that might be the vehicle for creating that kind of collaboration between the University and the City. Dr. Wilson noted that master plans were like general plans in that they change over time. Mr. De Mauro mentioned that they just went to San Bernardino for an increase in the master plan there to 25,000 full time students. San Bernardino was at about 10,500 full time students and they were approved to 12,000 full time students now, so they went back to gain the Trustees' approval as to where they would add buildings, what they would look like and so on out through 25,000 full time students. It was an ongoing process and the master plan that exists now, the 25,000 master plan, had a substantial number of changes from the one when the founding fathers created it back in 1963-64. It was an ongoing process that probably took 24 months to put the new one together. It was an adjustment to reality and to how needs changed and part of the advantage they had here that they didn't have in San Bernardino was that they have in writing a consultation z process that they could exercise. � � Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There was no one and Chairperson Jonathan cl ed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Finerty stated that she felt very comfortable with the review committee that had been set up. Chairperson Jonathan said it was exciting to see this getting closer and closer to reality. It would be a change and vast improvement to the quality of life to our community to see the Cal State CVC campus continue in its good progress. He called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1916, recommending to City Council approval of a Master Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (SCH #971 1 1071) to allow development of a California State University Campus on 204± acres at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive. Motion carried 5-0. � � � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ' MARCH 16, 1999 +�r.. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. PP/CUP 99-2 As directed by the Planning Commission on March 2, 1999 presentation of a resolution denying a request by The Damone Group, LLC, for a precise plan/conditional use permit for a 60-bed single story senior assisted living complex on 3.77 acres at the southeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Hovley Lane, 73-055 Hovley Lane. Mr. Drell noted that the Planning Commission had the resolution with the finding being that the project's intensity and inherent institutional operationa! characteristics and building scale would not be compatible with the adjacent single family residential community. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. �"" Commissioner Finerty stated that she would like to comment on the letter sent to Steve Smith dated March 1 1 from Mr. Lutich. He was concerned that the commission didn't take staff's recommendation to continue the item and he again addressed the letter circulated by a homeowner encouraging other neighbors not to attend the neighborhood meeting. She pointed out that the letter was a suggestion and that the homeowner didn't handcuff or lock up the homeowners and they chose of their own free will not to attend that meeting and she felt the record showed there was a 100% negative response to the project and that it was ludicrous to think that had all of them attended that there would be overwhelming support. With that she moved to approve Resolution 1917. Ac io : !t was moved by Commissioner Finerty to approve Resolution No. 1917. Commissioner Campbell felt that the commission should have had the common courtesy to extend a continuance to the applicant due to staff's recommendation that it be continued. That would allow for changes to be made and since most of the public was ill informed as to what was the actual project was. She aiso felt that the Planning Commission was degraded and bullied by the public that was sitting before them at the last meeting and she � felt they should take it into consideration that they didn't know what was 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION , MARCH 16, 1999 going on since they called the project a mental institution. Commissioner Beaty stated that he has felt bad since he left the council chamber that evening and he agreed with Commissioner Campbell that they yielded to some pressure from a group of people who perhaps did not have credible information. He had gone back and reviewed the testimony and he really didn't see anything in there that was not emotionally based. There were comments about parking and traffic and so on that were items that could be perhaps mitigated. Everything else was emotionally based and he felt bad that he voted to support the denial and he was prepared to reverse his vote and deny the motion to deny the project. Chairperson Jonathan noted that there was a motion on the table at this point and asked if there was a second. Commissioner Lopez seconded the motion. Chairperson Jonathan asked for discussion on the motion. He asked staff if in the event that the motion was not passed what would happen. Mr. Drell said that staff could readvertise and reopen the public hearing since no action had occurred. Mr. Hargreaves said he briefly reviewed the procedures and there was nothing to guide them, but in terms of due process and fairness, that was what he would advise them to do if the commission wished to reconsider the action--they should renotice it � and reopen the public hearing and go through the process again to give everyone a chance to say what they needed to say and make a decision at that point. Commissioner Campbell asked if she could make a motion to continue the item. Mr. Drell said that by definition it would have been continued since no action would have occurred. Mr. Hargreaves indicated they could have a motion to reconsider and direct staff to renotice. Mr. Drell said he didn't know if the commission wanted to go through that hearing again or if they wanted the council to deal with it if in fact the applicant wished to appeal. He thought there was discussion that it would be appealed. Chairperson Jonathan said he would proceed with discussion on the motion and if the motion failed, then perhaps they could have discussion about their options. He noted that the motion before them was to approve the findings as presented by staff as outlined in the resolution denying the request by The Damone Group. He asked if there was any other discussion on that particular motion. There wasn't and he called for the vote. The motion failed on a 2-3 vote (Chairperson Jonathan and Commissioners Beaty and Campbell voted no1. Commissioner Beaty said he would certainly hope that as indicated by Mr. Drell everyone who was legally entitled to receive a notice would receive the � same, but also everyone who testified the night of the previous hearing should also be noticed. � 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 `.. Chairperson Jonathan wanted to explain to council and for the record that the reason he was opposed to the denial at this point, and he had not made a decision in his mind regarding the application, but in reviewing the record, testimony and so forth, he thought he made a mistake in not giving the applicant an opportunity to address the concerns that were expressed that night. He said it was possible that the concerns could be adequately mitigated. He kind of reached the conclusion that it wasn't possible, but he felt he shouldn't have jumped to that conclusion. If the applicant came back and said he would build a 7,000 square foot facility; if they didn't like a big building he would do it in clusters of three small ones and he would have all grass parking and landscaping nicer than the Annenberg Estate and so on. If he went to that extent perhaps the residents would agree. Was it realistic that the applicant would go to that extent he didn't know, but he felt perhaps it was inappropriate on his part to not provide the applicant with an opportunity to address those concerns. That was why he was not yet prepared to deny it. Commissioner Campbell noted that there were a lot of other projects where �""' the residents were present and were ill informed and afterwards when the commission had the applicant address their concerns, they changed their minds. Commissioner Beaty stated that he in no way had made a decision pro or con for this particular project, he just felt that they needed to give the applicant the opportunity to address the concerns and revisit the issue. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was a way they could pick up where they left off so they didn't go back to square one in terms of the applicant presenting the same proposal, because the applicant had heard the concerns. Mr. Drell said the applicant could always come back with revised exhibits to the plan--he would to a certain extent if he was inclined to come back. He felt this issue was likely to go to council. It was his understanding that the applicant was considering appealing the decision. lf the project were to be approved, there would be those in the public who would appeal and it would go to council sooner or later. This might give the Planning Commission an opportunity to better articulate their position on a modified design. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was possible to find out if the council preferred for the Planning Commission to hear it again before it went to them ` or if they preferred just to let it go to council and hear the response from the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 applicant directly. It occurred to him that if the Planning Commission brought the matter back they might just be avoiding the inevitable that council would get it, so maybe it was a bit superfluous. Commissioner Campbell said it was her understanding that whatever Planning Commission voted the project would have gone to council. Mr. Drell noted that the Planning Commission could make comments. Commissioner Lopez asked if the applicant indicated that he was going to appeal. Mr. Drell said there was an indication that he would appeal, but they couldn't appeal until there was a resolution of denial or approval adopted. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was possible to send the matter to council without a formal denial and give them an opportunity to send it back to commission if they chose. Mr. Harg�eaves said would basically be a recommendation to council. Mr. Drell felt the question was why in this case the commission would choose to not make a recommendation. Chairperson Jonathan said it wasn't that they were refusing. His concern was if they went through the notice procedure and so forth that would consume time and if the council was prepared to hear this = matter and preferred to address it directly, then he would be just as happy to let them do that. He didn't feel that the commission needed to since they had done the proper process and now it was a matter of the applicant addressing the concerns and he could do that either before the commission or before the council. Mr. Drell said that was probably the most expeditious process, but in order for that to happen the commission had to deny the project. Commissioner Finerty pointed out from the minutes of March 2 that Chairperson Jonathan explained to the audience that the application had been denied but the actual resolution would be adopted at the next meeting. At that meeting they would not open the public testimony so it would just be the formality of the vote of denial. It was very clear to the people what the commission's intent was and had they had the resolution in front of them that night, there was no question it would have been denied. She asked if they were proper at this point to change. Mr. Hargreaves explained that at any point up to when they actually take the definitive action they could reconsider a decision. They could even reconsider after taking a definitive action if they reconsidered it at the same meeting. The commission had not taken a definitive action so they were free to reconsider it. Given the fact that the matter was basically continued to this meeting under the bylaws it could be � construed to be the same session. The point ultimately was not to get wrapped up in the formalities and technicalities, but the commission needed 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 �n. to reach a decision on the merits of the application which it felt it could support and felt comfortable with. If that required something more than what had already been done, then it was incumbent upon the commission to get on the record with a definitive action it felt was the decision. Commissioner Campbell asked if they could just recommend to council that commission wished to continue it and see what council said and if it should come back before commission. Mr. Hargreaves said they needed to make a decision one way or the other. If they didn't want to belabor the issue at commission level, the kind of finding they might want to reach was that upon further consideration commission believed that the project might be modified so that it could recommend it but rather than belabor the point here knowing it was going to council the commission would send it forward to expedite the process without making a formal recommendation based on the fact that the commission did not believe at this point that they had a fully developed application in front of them--they had not given the developer an opportunity to go back and modify it in response to the objections raised and commission felt the applicant needed to have that opportunity before a definitive decision was made, but rather than require him to come back to commission, they �""' would send him along so they didn't waste his time. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that the commission action would be to send the matter to council without a recommendation but with an explanation as expressed and certainly the council would have the ability to send it back to commission if they wanted commission to listen to the applicant and take more public testimony and give council a recommendation or they could choose to hear the matter on their own. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he was comfortable with that course of action. To reiterate, the commission would be sending the matter to council without taking formal action but instead with an explanation that they felt that it would be appropriate to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised during the process and to review the matter with that input. Commissioner Finerty noted that the applicant had a rebuttal in the minutes on pages 35, 36 and 37 where he did respond. Chairperson Jonathan agreed, but indicated that the applicant requested a continuance so that he could more fully respond to those concerns. Commissioner Finerty stated that she didn't recall the applicant requesting a continuance. She thought that was staff's recommendation. Chairperson Jonathan thought he did and certainly in his letter he expressed it. Commissioner Finerty agreed that he did in his letter, but that night he didn't request a continuance. Commissioner Beaty thought the applicant was expecting a continuance which � he may not have been entitled to do, but he thought that was the expectation. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION k MARCH 16, 1999 Commissioner Finerty said that in a sense it reminded her of the Walgreen's issue at city council where they thought they had denied it but hadn't taken a formal action and that was where the commission was right now. Commissioner Campbell stated that she knew where she stood. Commissioner Beaty said that he felt the applicant was entitled to some time to consider and if necessary amend the project to address the concems offered at that evening. He thought the commission might be shirking their responsibility to just pass it to council. He thought those residents were entitled to listen to the applicant and more fully explore the issue. All the decisions were based on emotional testimony and he didn't think it was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked what course of action he recommended at this point. Commissioner Beaty was in favor of denying the motion to deny the project and renoticing everyone and having another public hearing. He didn't think that the applicant had a sense of urgency that the commission would have to bypass that responsibility and send it to council and it might give the residents more time to more clearly evaluate the project. Chairperson Jonathan asked what would happen if the commission failed to take action on the motion of denial and there were no other motions that passed. Mr. Drell said the commission had to act to send it to council, otherwise there was nothing for � the applicant to appeal so he would be left in limbo. Mr. Hargreaves stated that no action was a denial of the application. Commissioner Beaty noted that at this point in time the commission denied the motion to deny. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty to renotice the issue and schedule another public hearing and notice everyone who testified at the March 2 hearing. Mr. Drell clarified that it would be an amended application. Commissioner Finerty said the motion was to approve the resolution and that motion failed. Commissioner Beaty concurred and explained he was placing a new motion on the floor. His new motion stated renotice as legally directed and everyone else who testified that evening and reschedule the public hearing to allow the applicant to address the commission. Chairperson Jonathan asked for a second to the motion. Commissioner Campbell seconded. Chairperson Jonathan asked for discussion on that motion. Commissioner Finerty said she was extremely uncomfortable. They told the crowd how they felt and Chairperson Jonathan even addressed the issue of if the applicant did everything they wanted if it would make a diffe�ence. He felt it was unlikely. � She thought that it would be fruitless to continue and she could not imagine how, no matter what the applicant came up with, that would change minds. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 ir.. She thought they were going to infuriate the public because they were led to believe that it was denied at this level although they understood it could be appealed to the city council and she felt that it would be going in the wrong direction and was clearly misleading because it was not stated to them two weeks ago that the commission could change their minds tonight. It was told to them that this was just a formality and she was very uncomfortable with that. She would be more comfortable with denying it and letting the commissioners that were having second thoughts state so in the minutes that they were uncomfortable and the reasons why and maybe they should have allowed the applicant to come back and to continue it, but ultimately she thought this was going to the city council and that was where it needed to go and the commission needed to keep their word. Commissioner Campbell commented that tonight's meeting wasn't a public hearing so even if anyone was present they wouldn't have been able to speak. Commissioner Beaty noted that the commission's comments were being recorded and would be forwarded to councii so these comments including Commissioner Finerty's were on record. Commissioner Lopez asked if they denied the application this evening if that gave the applicant an opportunity now to appeal to the city w"' council. Mr. Drell concurred, but indicated that the commission had not approved the resolution to deny. Right now there was nothing to appeal since no action had been taken. Until there was an approval of an action with an affirmative three votes, no action had occurred. A failed motion was not an action. Chairperson Jonathan said the motion to deny the application had not yet passed, therefore, they had not denied the application and there wasn't anything that was appealable. If the present motion passed, then the applicant wouldn't appeal because commission would just be reopening the public hearing. What they were saying was until the commission said either yea or nay in the form of a resolution, then neither the applicant nor residents had a basis for appealing. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he was really on the fence as he shared all of the concerns. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that with the Portofino project there were people from Casablanca against the project. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he didn't have a problem going against the wishes of 200 or 300 or 1,000 people. He voted his conscience and he didn't have a problem with that. That was the beauty of sitting in the commission's position. They didn't have to worry about votes or anything else. They just had to vote individually and as a commission as to what was right. He also felt the process worked. He didn't have a problem proceduraNy in terms of not approving the resolution of denial because he thought that was ;� why the process was there and if they didn't approve it there would be 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 � .r another public hearing; it just postponed it but there was still adequate opportunity. He thought there was some expectation to be sure that tonight was a formality in terms of approving or formalizing the denial, but if that should not come to be tonight, then if the residents were interested enough they would come back. He was really on the fence on this one. Commissioner Beaty said he should find out which way he would fall and then call for the vote. Chairperson Jonathan agreed and asked for any other discussion. There wasn't any. He reiterated that the motion was to continue the process with reopening the public hearing and giving the applicant an opportunity to make a presentation, give the residents an opportunity to respond, and continue the process. He asked for the vote. The motion failed on a 2-3 vote f Chairperson Jonathan and Commissioners Finerty and Lopez voted no). Chairperson Jonathan noted that at this point the commission had not taken any action on the application. Mr. Drell said they were back to a minute motion to refer it to council with comment with the explanation that for the sake of consideration for the expectations of the residents and the expediency of the process they would be forwarding it to council with comments of the individual planning commissioners and an explanation of how they got there. Staff would try to explain the unique circumstances with which this thing happened. He said they had to realize that the residents had to take time out of their lives to come to the meetings and asked if they should have the obligation to come to another one and then another one--he didn't know. That could be the possible process. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the resolution of denial had been approved then the matter would only have gone to council if the matte� was appealed or if the council chose to call it up. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan suggested that they do exactly as Mr. Drell described and that was to send the matter to council simply with an explanation that as a body the commission was torn between complying with the indications at the last meeting that there would simply be the formality of approval with regards to the resolution of denial and on the other hand the desire to give the applicant an opportunity to more fully address the concerns expressed by the residents. As a body the commission was torn and was sending it to council for its consideration of this matter and if the council wished the commission to reopen the public hearing, they would be pleased to do so. If it wished the commission to p�epare a resolution of denial they � would consider that as well. If they wanted to send it back to commission, ' fine. If they wanted to handle it, fine. Mr..Drell asked the City Attorney if 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 �r.. that was an appealable action by the applicant. Commissioner Finerty asked if it would be simpler to adopt the resolution and then it would be incumbent upon the council to call it up or the developer to appeal and then they would still be accomplishing the same thing but the comments of the other commissioners would go with it but at least they would have taken an action and done something. Mr. Hargreaves said that if the commission was unable to reach a decision one way or the other, it basically was a decision which was in effect a denial without a recommendation and then the developer could appeal it. Mr. Drell said such an action of a no decision and a referral could be kind of appealed and if that was the case and the applicant's preference, they coutd act on that appeal and schedule it for public hearing before the council. Mr. Hargreaves said it was basically a non decision but if the commission refused to act, in effect it was a denial without the required findings but the applicant would then have the ability to appeal. Mr. Drell said that staff would explain the unique circumstances which led them here. Commissioner Beaty noted that all of the commission's comments were on record and didn't think that Mr. Drell would need to attempt to explain since council could read the minutes. Mr. Drell said he would still attempt to summarize in the staff report '� how it got to this point. He thought council would sympathize with the circumstances that got them to this point. Chairperson Jonathan thought where they were heading was a minute motion sending the matter to council in consideration of all the comments that had been made. Mr. Hargreaves suggested a minute motion that said that the commission refused to make a decision based on the record before it and suggested that the matter be referred to council fo� further proceedings. Chairperson Jonathan suggested that instead of saying refused, that the motion reflect that the commission deliberated exhaustively and was unable to reach a consensus resulting in an action. Mr, Hargreaves also suggested the wording respectfully declines. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to make that a motion. Chairperson Jonathan said he would move for that since it would move the item to council in a neutral way. A ion: It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, by minute motion, to refer the matter to city council for further proceedings because of the commission's inability to reach a consensus based on the record before it. Chairperson Jonathan asked for a second to the motion. There wasn't one and the motion failed due � ` to the lack of a second. � 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan said they could just move on then since there was no action, not even a recommendation to send it to council. He didn't have any idea what that did to the process, but he guessed it would give the applicant enough opportunity to appeal since there was no approval. Mr. Hargreaves said it was effectively a denial and the applicant could appeal it. Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant could appeal with no resolution. Mr. Hargreaves said yes, because the alternative would be to have it forever locked up at the commission level. Mr. Drell concurred that if the commission couldn't approve a resolution or minute motion that was no action. If this happened at city council it would be a real problem since they were the end of the line, but Planning Commission was not the final decision maker. Mr. Drell said this was where the explanation of how it happened and the dynamics of how it happened would be needed. Since it was going to get to the council anyway, an issue of this controversy was liable to get to the. council in any case. This kind of shortened the decision making process and took it to a level that it would ultimately get to anyway. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant appealed if the council could send it back to the � commission. Mr. Drell said that if the council saw a plan which was substantially different and it wanted the planning commission's input, it could � always get it. Mr. Hargreaves said that even if the plan wasn't substantially different if the council looked at the same plan and was upset that the commission didn't act on it council could send it back here and insist the commission act on it. Chairperson Jonathan said he would like to move for approval of the resolution of denial with an explanation to council that in the event that the applicant appealed and presented a substantively different plan with redeeming qualities, that the commission would welcome the opportunity to revisit the application. Commissioner Beaty asked if the commission could vote a second time on the same motion. Mr. Hargreaves advised that there be a motion to reconsider, made by one of the persons who voted in the majority the first time. Chairperson Jonathan said that since he was in the majority that denied the motion to approve the resolution he would move to reconsider the motion for adoption of the resolution of denial. Action: It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty to reconsider adoption of the resolution of denial by minute motion. Motion carried 3-2 lCommissioners Beaty and Campbell voted no.) � � � � 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 �.. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he would now move for adoption of the resolution of denial with an explanation to council that if the applicant appealed and if the applicant presented a substantively different plan-solution, that the commission would welcome the opportunity to revisit the application. Commissioner Finerty noted that would be adoption of Resolution No. 1917 and she would amend the motion that it would be up to council to send it back to the commission at their discretion. Chairperson Jonathan concurred. Commissioner Finerty seconded the motion. Chairperson Jonathan asked for discussion. There was no further discussion and he called for the vote. The motion carried 3-1-1 (Commissioner Campbell voted no, Commissioner Beaty abstained►. Chairperson Jonathan thanked Commissioner Beaty for bringing forth his concerns. He also obviously had conflicting feelings and thoughts and was glad that the discussion took place. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES I�r A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (March 16, 1999) Commissioner Finerty noted that the meeting was primarily informational and they discussed the Art and Leisure Trail; the clubhouse was scheduled to open on October 4; there was a bus shelter update and a little bit of signage discussion. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (March 15, 1999) Commissioner Finerty stated that an item that would be becoming before the commission on April 20 would be the Palm Desert Country Club neighborhood park. The map included basketball and volleyball and it looked like it would be a nice park. They also came up with a landscaping plan for Hovley Lane and Fred Waring which they were delighted to see to go in concert with the eight foot walls that were going to be erected. There was a brief discussion that Washington Street would be increased to three lanes in each direction with a 14- � foot median similar to La Quinta and they anticipated that to be 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 ' completed in December of 2000. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Commissioner Finerty recalled the size of the park. Mr. Drell said it was about three acres. He didn't know if the commission was familiar with the facility but it basically included the rose garden, the vacant area next to the rose garden and then there was large parking lot out there. They were turning two thirds of the parking lot which had never been used into park area. Commissioner Beaty asked who owned the Community Center. Mr. Drell said the Palm Desert Homeowners Association was leasing the property to the city for 51 .00 a year for 30 years. Commissioner Finerty understood that Sprint was putting in a cell site and they were going to be getting S 1 ,500 a month. Mr. Drell said that was right. D. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) ; � XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m. ��. ,�� '1 � PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ATTEST• SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson � Palm Desert Planning Commission � /tm � 24