Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0601 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JUNE 1, 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 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez Members Absent: Paul Beaty ... Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Request fo� consideration of the May 18, 1999 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the May 18, 1999 minutes. Motion carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent May 27, 1999 City Council action. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .... None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 � V11. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 98-28 - DENNIS FRANDSEN, Applicant Request for approvaf of a lot line adjustment for Lots 6 and H of Tract No. 27520-3 to expand lots within the Bighorn development. B. Case No. PMW 99-9 - BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for Lots 37 and 38 of Tract 25296-1 to expand lots within the Canyons development. C. Case No. PMW 99-10 - MINISTRELLI CONSTRUCTION, Applicant Request for approva{ of a lot line adjustment of Lots 43-45 of Tract 25296-1 to expand lots within the Canyons development. ; � Action: !t was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. VII1. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or 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. TPM 29246 - COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, Applicant (Continued from May 18, 1999) Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide one parcel into two single family lots. Property is located on the west side of Portola Avenue, 700 feet south of Catalina Way at 44-491 Portola Avenue. � � � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 � Mr. Drell indicated that upon reflection it did not seem a good idea for the applicant or the city to have this piece of property cut up just to facilitate the sale of at least a piece of the property. Staff could see the long term potential uses on Portola, especially when the roadway was widened, to be more office professional than residential, which was probably why the Water District was having trouble selling the property. Staff was in discussions with the Water District to convince them it was probably in their best interest, as well as the city's, to keep this property the way it is and maybe the commission should direct staff to look at a long term zoning and general plan designation for this Portola corridor. He pointed out what had been accomplished on Fred Waring, although it took a long time. Back in 1984 Fred Waring Drive was designated from residential to office professional and the city was finally seeing the result of that. In essence they were getting redevetopment through zoning and he could see the same process ultimately on Portola. Having a larger lot under single ownership would facilitate that as opposed to cutting it up and having two owners and probably a further deteriorating single family home on that site. He suggested a one-month continuance. Chairperson Jonathan asked for confirmation that he was asking for one month as opposed to the two weeks � previously indicated. Mr. Drell concurred. He said at the next meeting staff would come back with a report on the current state of Portola and the feasibility of a redesignation. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they changed the general plan o� the intent for Portola, if that wouid affect this application. He asked if they could change this midway. Mr. Drell believed that the O.P. zone, if they were to make it an O.P. zone, might have a minimum lot size which might be larger than what they are requesting. His understanding was that they would, if they could be convinced that it would go to O.P., then they would agree not to divide it. That would be nonproductive. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the City Attorney agreed they could change midway through the application and change the zoning. Mr. Hargreaves said that in most cases they could change the rules up until the "sticks go in the air." Mr. Drell read from the Zoning Ordinance that "minimum site size for property zoned office professional shall be 15,000 square feet." Commissioner Campbell asked how many residences there were between this piece of property and the Dowgialo property discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Drell indicated that the Dowgialo property was one building off Alessandro, so it was a considerable distance. There were three or four �- residences and then San Jacinto. Some of the houses actually had their 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 ; ; � .� frontage on the side street and those were probably still okay. Commissione� Campbell indicated she was talking about the ones fronting on Portola. Mr. Drell thought there might be around six total if they took off the ones fronting on side streets. If the commission directed him to, he would come back with a report and potential recommendation on whether they should initiate a general plan amendment or change the zoning in the area. Chairperson Jonathan o�ened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. He asked if there was anyone else present who wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. The public hearing was left open and Chai�person Jonathan asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing TPM 29246 to July 6, 1999 by minute motion and directing staff to study long term zoning along the Porto{a corridor and report back on June 15, 1999. Motion carried 4-0. � B. Case No. PM 29166 - GARY W. LYONS, Applicant "� Request for approval of a parcel map to merge 11 lots into one lot and dedicate right-of-way for street widening for development of a Walgreens Drug Store at the southeast corner of Monterey Avenue and San Gorgonio Way, 44-830 Monterey Avenue. Mr. Smith explained that they were looking at a merger of 1 1 lots. Council approved the precise plan portion of the application in September of 1998. He stated that the map was consistent with the provisions of the code and with the approved precise plan. A portion of the property included in the map was owned by the Parking Authority and there would need to be an agreement executed between the Parking Authority and the applicant and that needed to take place prior to the recordation of this map and there was a condition to that effect. The matter was previously assessed for CEQA compliance and no further documentation was necessary. Staff recommended approval of the map. Mr. Smith noted that a letter was �eceived which was distributed to commission just before the meeting from Mr. Witte, who had commented � extensively previously on the project in general and he wished to reiterate his � previous concerns. Staff recommended that commission approve the parcel map, subject to conditions. � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 � Chairperson Jonathan o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GARY W. LYONS, 160 Menil Place in Palm Desert, said that one of the conditions in the report was the easement agreement that was entered into between the Palm Desert Parking Authority, himself and his wife, and that agreement had been drafted and required the concurrence of Walgreens with certain aspects. He received those concurrences and they had fulfilled all the requirements for their part. They signed it and had given it back to Mr. Erwin and requested and obtained May 12 insurance in favor of the Parking Authority. Mr. Erwin now had it in his possession. Mr. Smith informed the applicant that Mr. Erwin would be putting the agreement on the next council agenda. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was � closed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1925, approving PM 29166, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case Nos. CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 Amendment #2 - ONE EL PASEO LLC, Applicant Request for app�oval of a conditional use permit to allow a 17,000 square foot medical/dental office located at 74-235 EI Paseo. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that the location was 74-235 Highway 11 1, not EI Paseo. Mr. Smith concu�red. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the request was also for a 20,000 square foot building and there was also 46,000 in � addition to that. Mr. Smith said he would cover that in his report. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 � Mr. Smith indicated that Planning Commission received a piece of correspondence that was received after the commission packets were delivered. That was a letter from Mr. Rasmussen, the applicant, which included a copy of his title report on the property. Mr. Smith said they were talking about the property at the southeast corner of EI Paseo and Highway 111 . At this point the property was occupied by Kaiser Grill and L.G.'s Steakhouse, and a small office at the rear of that building. They were approved in 1991 . At that time there were two additional office buildings approved that had not yet been constructed. Mr. Rasmussen acquired the property recently and intended to proceed with and subject to those approvals. The building on the corner as mentioned would be a two-story 46,000 square foot building. The building to the east was a two-story 20,000 square foot building. He pointed out the site plan on display. He showed the location of the existing buildings toward the center of the site, the two story building located on the corner and the two story building on the east side, which was the building subject to tonight's hearing. The request by the applicant was to allow the easterly 20,000 square foot building, which nets out to about 17,000 square feet, to be used for medical office purposes. He noted that in � the last year the zoning code was amended to require six parking spaces per � 1 ,000 square feet of inedical office uses. The code requires that any parking in the C-1 zone, any use above four spaces per 1 ,000, is required to obtain a conditional use permit approved through the planning commissio�. The 1991 review of this application did not anticipate medical office use, hence the applicant was requesting it at this point. The parking for the entire project had been constructed. There were 313 parking spaces on this property. The site plan was one used at the time of the 1991 approval and he noted it showed a few parking spaces to the west of this property and that was part of the reason for Mr. Rasmussen's letter to the commission in that while he did have an interest in that property, it was not part of the application before the commission this evening. The 313 parking spaces did not include anything west of the westerly property line and in fact as a condition on the approval suggested by staff was that they wall off the site so that they didn't have the potential problem of users on this site wanting to spread themselves across that property line. That was acceptable to Mr. Rasmussen. The day time uses on the site would be the two new office buildings along with the existing 12,000 square foot office. Mr. Smith pointed out the location. He said in the middle of page two of the staff report there was an analysis of the parking. As indicated, there were 313 parking spaces. Assuming a full building of ' medical/dental use there would be 265 spaces required. There was an overage of 48 parking spaces. Then there was the issue if one of the 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 �.. restaurants opened for lunch. Currently there were provisions in the lease for L.G.'s that prevented it from opening before 5:00 p.m. Kaiser Grill in the past had been open for lunch and currently they were not. Both uses currently opened at 5:30 p.m. Kaiser Grill on its own has a parking requirement for 60 parking spaces, so even if they were open for lunch and that was added in, there was a 12-space deficiency between the 60 spaces and the 48. The other issue staff was concerned with was late in the day there might be a potential for some overlapping between the medical office use and the restaurant use. The restaurants currently open at 5:30 p.m. Staff suggested a condition on the medical office uses that would limit them to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. In addition, staff was suggesting a six-foot wall be constructed along the southwest property line in order to prevent parking from this use from spilling over. Staff thought it was fairly unlikely that someone going to the medical office would walk around the sidewalk in that it was a considerable distance. He indicated in the staff report that a letter was received from Mr. Swajian, the owner of neighboring properties to the west. M�. Smith thought Mr. Rasmussen's first letter that was included in the commission packets responded to that. The essential part of it was that while ,,,,,, he has a right to some of the parking spaces in that area, it is not part of this application and in fact would be walled off. The findings for approving the conditional use permit were outlined in pages four and five of the staff report. The request was a Class 3 Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA. Staff was recommending approval subject to conditions. He called attention to Condition No. 4 which required that the restaurant known as L.G.'s Steakhouse or its successors should not open for business before 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Condition No. 5, that the hours of operation for the medical/dental building be limited to 8:00 to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and that the owner be required to impose that condition in all leases in said building. Condition No. 6, that the applicant install a six-foot masonry wall along the southwest, south and east property lines. He also wanted to add Condition No. 7 to read: "That the applicant submit a parking management plan to delineate employee parking areas, valet areas and hours, and other parking related issues to the satisfaction of the Di�ector of Community Development." He said he referred to that in the staff report but it hadn't been added to the resolution. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty asked how high the 20,000 square foot building was proposed to be. Mr. Smith said two stories and 29 or 30 feet high. Commissioner Finerty asked how high the surrounding buildings in the area � were. Mr. Smith said they were one-story. Commissioner Finerty asked if 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 they were approximately 18 feet. Mr. Smith replied 16-18 feet. Mr. Drell pointed out that there were other two story buildings on Highway 1 1 1 down the next block. Right at the corner at Panorama the�e was a two-sto�y building and the next building was a two-story building, then a one story building, and other two story buildings. He said there were three or four two- story buildings from there down to Deep Canyon and thought that half the bui{dings were two story. Commissioner Campbe{I said there was even a two- story building on the corner of EI Paseo by Wells Fargo Bank at Larrea. Mr. Drelt concurred and indicated there was a one story building in between and then the two story building on that corner. Commissioner Campbell asked how high L.G.'s Steakhouse was. Mr. Drell thought it was about 24 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked if the height of a two-story building was 24-25 feet high. Mr. Drell said that typically with parapet walls screening equipment it reached 30 feet. The height limit in the zone was 30 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked if the entrance to the development would be on EI Paseo and Highway 1 11 . Mr. Smith concurred that it had access from both streets. Mr. Smith pointed out the entrances on the map and the location of the proposed wall. � Commissioner Lopez noted that in the conditions of approval Mr. Smith indicated L.G.'s Steakhouse's hours of operation and asked if staff was concerned about Kaiser Grill. He noted that Mr. Smith mentioned that the parking spaces were enough to cover a shortfall and asked if the cammission needed to be concerned about that. Mr. Smith said that unfornately at the time the city approved the restaurant staff didn't condition it and the lease did not preclude it, so there was little the city could do about that one. Mr. Drell said that typically at lunch a good number of people in office buildings were at lunch. Just like in any typical retail center the typical four/1 ,000 parking could accommodate up to 20°Jo restaurant by virtue of the fact that some of those people were going to be eating at that �estaurant or eating at a different restaurant so that during the peak 1 1 :30 a.m. to 1 :30 p.m. period there was shared use of some sort. In this case there were 48 spaces in addition to the normal. Chairperson Jonathan noted that they would be placing a condition that involved another building and asked if it was the same owner. Mr. Smith said yes. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that Mr. Smith said it was just the 20,000 square foot building in front of the commission, but the project included a condition that addresses the other building. Mr. Smith said that 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 �.. was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they were on solid ground in doing that. Mr. Drell said that the property owner was consenting to that condition. Mr. Smith said that if they were unable to place the condition, it might seriously alter staff's ability to recommend in favor of it. Mr. Rasmussen had advised staff that the lease currently contains language to that effect. Chairperson Jonathan said if the�e was a problem, like L.G.'s started opening for iunch, the city wasn't in a position as a third interested party on a lease agreement. They have a condition of approval on this medical/dental office building so that if for some reason L.G.'s started serving lunch, they could in theory shut down the medical/dental office. Mr. Drell said that was correct and if this application was approved, the resolution should include both Conditional Use Permit 99-5 and an amendment to CUP 89-3. They were amending both. Chairperson Jonathan asked if L.G.'s was to operate for lunch, then in theory there was a 12-space shortfall because they'd require 60 spaces and there was an overage of 48. He asked about Kaiser Grill and if they opened for lunch, how many spaces they would require and what the shortfall would be. Mr. Smith said the premise was based on Kaiser being open. Chairperson Jonathan said they were the ones that didn't have a lease � agreement that prevented them from opening, so in theory tomorrow they could open for lunch. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they did that what their parking requirement would be. Mr. Smith said 60. Mr. Drell said the other question was what would happen if L.G.'s and Kaiser Grill both opened for lunch. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that L.G.'s was the one that had the lease agreement preventing them from opening for lunch and Kaiser was the one that had the capacity to do that. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that if Kaiser opened, that created the 12 space shortfall. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if for some reason they both opened, what the shortfall would be. Mr. Drell said 90. Mr. Smith said an additional 90. Mr. Drell said that L.G.'s was 7,500 square feet, so there would be a total shortfall of about 92-95 spaces. Chairperson Jonathan felt that was why it was t�uly imperative that L.G.'s not open for lunch. Mr. Drell said if in the future when this medical building was built and occupied and it could be demonstrated that there were 90 spaces available at lunch, then the applicant was still able to come back and ask for a waiver of that condition but the applicant would have to prove there were adequate spaces. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff was comfortable with the cross over time if there was a 5:00 p.m. closing restriction. Mr. Smith said yes, with the 5:00 p.m. closing and the 5:30 p.m. restriction for the restaurant opening. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that at the ingress/egress �- on Highway 1 11 there was a dedicated right-hand turn lane from EI Paseo onto 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 ..ri Highway 1 1 1 . That ingress/egress point was kind of close to that access and he asked if there was consideration given to moving the ingressJegress point to the very eastern end of the parking lot so that it didn't come that close to the corner and intrude on the right-hand tu�n from El Paseo. What happe�ed was that people making a right were accelerating rapidly so they could merge left onto Highway 1 1 1 where the speed limit is 50 mph. They were looking at their side and rear view mirrors trying to accelerate rapidly and move over left. The last thing they would be doing was looking to the right at who might be coming out of that parking lot. Not to suggest that people "have a few," but people coming out of that parking lot might not be as careful coming out of that parking lot as they should be. Mr. Smith said at the time of day he was there, there were three other cars in the parking lot and that wasn't an issue. Chairperson Jonathan said they had to assume that the center would be successful. Mr. Smith said that staff didn't look at that in that it served as a direct feed to the majority of the parking spaces. Mr. Drell stated that the parking lot was built and had been there six or seven years in that configuration. Chairperson Jonathan said with the increased use he was looking at the opportunity of moving that over but if staff felt in their � professional opinion that there wasn't a danger posed, then so be it. Mr. � Greenwood said that from the Public Works Department's opinion since it was "'r an existing driveway and hasn't had any history at all of any problem, they thought it would be fine where it is and it served the onsite circulation best where it was located now. Chairperson Jonathan asked about the dedicated right-hand turn lane. Mr. Greenwood indicated that it has been there at least four years and before he worked for the city. Mr. Drell stated that the work was done by the developer when he remodeled the L.G.'s and Kaiser building and put in the parking lot. He thought it was done around 1992. The applicant widened and cfeated that lane. There used to be a frontage road there and they eliminated the frontage road. The lane on Highway 1 11 was a deceleration lane to the entrance to the project. All that corner work was done by the original developer. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. SAM RASMUSSEN, President of Ocean Properties Development and the managing member/owner/developer of One EI Paseo LLC at 1919 Grand Avenue in San Diego, stated that the project approved in 1991 with the parking had always envisioned medical and dental in it. � When the project was first being put together there was quite a bit of 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 � interest in the medical and dental community to come on into the project and it was only in the last year that the parking changes came into effect and necessitated a conditional use permit application. Their financial center on the west end of the building would be solely office and in his opinion minimum parking usage if not just norma! parking usage including as their anchor tenant A.G. Edward's, a stock brokerage that closes at 2:30 or 3:00 p.m. when the market closed. The project itself would only have office users, financial type users, attorneys, etc., in the west building. In the east building they had been getting quite a bit of interest from the local medicalldental community and doctors and dentists in Palm Desert now that would like to come into the project. That was why they went forth with a conditional use permit application to accommodate those users. The project itself has a lot of critical mass and the critical mass is that a project of this size probably has more parking spaces than most any other office professional project in Palm Desert, so by definition 300 and some parking spaces as they all knew for shopping centers and whatnot, if it wasn't for Christmas or a special time, on the larger projects when they had fou� spaces per � 1 ,000 requirements they ended up with quite a bit of excess parking and he thought that would be the case with this project as well. The project was completely self contained. In his opinion it did not impact any of the adjoining users. !t had a block wall completely around it and the only access area was the little "L" shaped parcel that was approved a couple of months ago and the updated site plan had that block wall closed off. They wanted to do that because they could add a couple of extra spaces if they added that block wall and they were just adding more parking there. The comment with regards to L.G.'s Steakhouse that was a firm condition in their lease, it was a default provision in their lease and L.G.'s Steakhouse just renewed their lease through the year 201 1 or 2012 with three 5-year options. It was a very successful restaurant and they anticipated that they would be there for the long run and as a dining steakhouse he had no interest in opening for funch. He serves steak and it wasn't a luncheon-type concept. He asked for questions. Commissioner Finerty said she didn't doubt that there was a lot of interest from doctors in the area and her concern had to do with how many doctors could be in each office. She knew that right now the trend seemed to be with doctors sharing offices and generally that lent itself to really crowded waiting �— rooms and an exacerbated parking problem as well. The staff report indicated 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 i � � that staff didn't know the mix of inedical and dental and she was aiso wondering if there was any potential for a clinic type of facility in any of the eight office buildings. Mr. Rasmussen said that all of the doctors that have come to them were not packed in tight. They have not signed any preleases or letters of intent with specific doctors, but they had proposals in hand. They didn't want to sign them before they came before commission. They didn't want to tell them the building was approved before they got the proper authorization. He stated that both of the buildings were very high end buildings. Not "B" or "C" buildings where they would bring in something that would be considered a lower tie� clinic or medical facility. They were done in granite and hardwood, etc., and their rent structu�e was S 1 .75 a foot, triple net, and he anticipated that they would not get the clinic type user that was more of an HMO or lower budget type user and only the higher end medical community. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Rasmussen anticipated doctors sharing ` offices. � Mr. Rasmussen said no, he didn't know what sharing was but for their occupancy and use they didn't anticipate any exceptional clinic or traffic use in the building at this particular point. They were only working with one or two doctors and were working with one dentist and he was a sing{e practitioner that wanted about 2,000 square feet of space--one doctor with the standard four or five type rooms to service his clients/patients. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be any laboratory there of any kind. Mr. Rasmussen said no. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Rasmussen understood and accepted the 5:00 p.m. closing restriction on operating hours. Mr. Rasmussen said yes and stated that they have talked with L.G.'s personally about this. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 � Chairperson Jonathan clarified that he was talking about the medical and dental building. Mr. Rasmussen said yes and indicated that was something that would be put into the leases for those hours. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they did end up with a clinic or something like that, they would understand that it wouldn't be a 24-hour operation. Mr. Rasmussen said yes, absolutely. Mr. Rasmussen said that one of the other items that staff did not bring up was that L.G.'s has requested for holidays, Thanksgivi�g and so forth when both the offices and medical spaces are traditionally closed, to be able to serve brunch. They had them for evening dining only and there was no language and he was restricted to evening dining in his first 10-year lease and he was further restricted now in his lease extension. He was asking that L.G.'s serve brunch on the holidays when the other offices were closed. As well, L.G.'s wanted to have his bar open because he thought the stock ,� brokerage would close at 4:00 p.m. and he wanted to serve cocktails only and/or appetizers before the 5:00 p.m. dinner hour and he requested early opening far those two eventualities. Chairperson Jonathan asked if with regards to the brunch Mr. Rasmussen was talking about a federal holiday, maybe on a Sunday. Mr. Rasmussen said yes, it would be holidays only and it would be the times when the entire rest of the project would traditionally not be used. Commissioner Campbetl asked if anticipating for cocktails would mean having the bar open at 4:00 p.m. or 4:30 p.m., instead of 5:30 p.m. Mr. Rasmussen said yes. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. MR. GREG SWAJIAN, 74-090 EI Paseo, stated that was a building he owns, and he indicated that he also owns a neighboring building at 74- �- 175 EI Paseo. He noted that commission had a copy of his letter. He 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 : � � received a copy of the packet that was faxed to him today and that was the first time he had an opportunity to look at the staff report and he had a few comments he wanted to address on the staff report which he just saw. One of the things that confused him, and he has been an attorney and he knew some of them for 20 years in that same location at 74-090 and down the line he was able to acquire the building. His staff, the other professionals in his building and himself, and he had that in his letter, had eaten lunch at L.G.'s about four or five years ago. They were open through the winter season which was basically Thanksgiving through mid April. If there was a lease provision regarding luncheons, he could tell them he was there time and time again because Kaiser hasn't been open for lunch, Ruth's Chris wasn't open for {unch, but L.G.'s was and they obviously breached that lease provision at least one time during their lease without any enforcement from the landlord whatsoever. Those were some of the other items he wanted to address. How would they enforce some of these provisions which sound pretty good right now but in reality might never come about? , That was one and he was sure they could talk to the people at L.G.'s and he would try to find some of his credit card receipts about paying � for lunch there and maybe he could get his money back if they weren't supposed to be open. Obviously that has happened and Kaiser didn't have it in their lease and he didn't know if Planning staff or the commissioners had even seen the lease that prohibited the lunches at L.G.'s. He hadn't seen it, but he knew they had served it four or five years ago. He said he went through schools in Indio: grammar, junior high and high school. He has been out here since 1955 so he has been here a long time and the law firm that he was with initially represented what used to be Able Cable, Coachella Valley Television, etc., which was located in the building now at 74-175 EI Paseo. The easement for ingress and egress from the One EI Paseo property has been for years used by the customers, owners and tenants on his property exiting on EI Paseo. From his letter, and if any of them had been out there, it was falling in disrepair. He was really surprised and astonished when he saw this report that the solution was to wall off the easement for ingress and egress that they shared with the predecessors in interest from Mr. Rasmussen for decades. Obviously that didn't address the issue on the fact that they have been receiving the property tax statements that have not been paid and they want to block it off, shut � it down or whatever they were trying to do. Secondly, where the Jet Copy building is, he owns that and that easement. They have an 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 `.. easement for ingress and egress as well as Jillians. Someone could go during the season to Jillians when staff starts coming in that was about noon time and the parking from Jillians spilled over onto Mr. Rasmussen's property day after day after day and they have been using that parking there day after day after day since Jillians has been there since 1990 or 92 and he wasn't sure when Jillians was in place, perhaps 1993. There is a parking problem at Jillians and their solution has been to pull it over on One EI Paseo and they also used some of his parking, too. Except for now it was in June at the end of the season and if this meeting took place 2, 3, 4, 5 months ago Jillians was as popular and as good a restaurant as any in Palm Desert and they didn't have adequate parking at Jillians for their own parking. And he hasn't seen that issue addressed--what were they going to do about all the people who go to Jillians and where were the going to put those cars? Secondly was the narrow easement. This easement was approved in 1958 or 1959 when this was first all put together out there and the codes were different, but it was a very narrow easement. He didn't hear anything from staff that they spoke to police and fire regarding his ... building or Jillians and he certainly didn't represent Jillians and he was only talking about his building, but Jillians was one of the neighbors that needed to be addressed. As the commission could see there by walling that off fire couldn't make a U-turn and fire couldn't do anything once they got in there. They were blocked like they were at the end of an alley with ihe wall there. Both the county and the city stopped approving flag lots for residences a long time ago because they needed the 660-foot diameter for fire. They were creating a dead end and by doing that did Mr. Rasmussen and his partners ahandon the easement that was on his property? They had an easement on Mr. Swajian's property for ingress and egress besides the fire and police issue which he didn't feel had been addressed regarding the other two buildings and he could guarantee them that with the parking, etc., going on at Jillians they were going to have more use of ambulance and other facilities because older clientele perhaps having a drink or two and having a health problem--what would they do with the massive amount of cars that were already there right now because there was a parking problem? By blocking that off that created more of a problem for the neighborhood and created the kind of situation he was sure this city didn't want to have because Jillians at night, and he knew this was approved a long time ago, could not handle the volume that it has. It �••� was the most popular restaurant, and he had been in that place since 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 i � � � it was the Wooden Nickle, EI Jackal, and everything else and Jillians was the one that has captivated this val{ey and it would have business forever. He thought Jay and June paid off their mortgage in two years. That was the kind of volume and business that they do there. He was concerned about fire, etc., and they certainly didn't want to lower the neighbors property values by putting a wall up there and they still hadn't dealt with the issue of the easement that was for ingress and egress. A successor in interest to Mr. Rasmussen then had an easement for ingress and egress on the other side of the wall. He asked if Mr. Rasmussen was going to abandon that easement for ingress and egress by putting up this wall? He thought all these issues should have been addressed and hadn't been addressed but putting in a wall there didn't solve the problem of either fire, medical, police or the Jillian parking problem or the reasonable use of his building which he thought was a concern they should all have because obviously they were trying to make things work. He was for progress on EI Paseo. He has been on EI Paseo for 20 years and he wanted things to work on EI Paseo and there was no question about that. A first class facility was fine, but he � thought a first class facility should have the adequate parking. If ; 17,000 was appropriate parking for the spaces, they needed to deal � with that, but they couldn't put up a wall and say they've solved the problem for the neighbors--they've created a bigger problem for the neighbors. He didn't see addressed in either Mr. Rasmussen's letter or through staff about the issue on the easement and the taxes. That was his property where the easement was on. When Mr. Radaker and Mr. Kusack purchased that property from their predecessors in interest they had the county send them the tax bill. Why he didn't know. But they did that and the tax bill was going to them. Mr. Swajian had paid those taxes for about six or seven years in a row. About four or five years later he received a letter from Mr. Kusack asking him to pay a portion of the taxes. He said he had paid them and showed them all the tax bills he paid, plus they were all delinquent because Mr. Kusack hadn't paid them and it wou{d be unfair to ask the neighbors to pay for that. In Mr. Rasmussen's escrow he advised Mr. Swajian that one of his conditions was to have Mr. Kusack or PDMB who had taken ove� a portion or all of it, he wasn't quite sure, and then Mr. Rasmussen closed escrow last fall then failed to pay the property taxes. :� � 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 �.. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Swajian was going to bring this around to something over which the commission had influence over because if he had a legal matter or legal dispute, the commission wouldn't get involved in that. Mr. Swajian thought that part of this process would be that either the planner and the developer meet with the neighbors to solve some of these problems which remained unaddressed and maybe that was a solution and might be the solution right now because he felt that fire, etc., needed to be involved in this walt issue because obviously they knew that neighborhood and that little easement dead ending caused that kind of problem so maybe the goal was to "kick it over." He also saw when he got the fax today, and he would have addressed this in a letter to the commission but he didn't see the staff report until this afternoon, that they were going to put some dumpsters along the border of his property. He was obviously not in favor of that and his dumpsters were around the entrance to the back. There were street people on EI Paseo and street people on H ighway 1 1 1 that came out more at night. The dumpsters from what he saw on the fax he got �„ would be located right near the wall against his property. When the wind blew garbage would blow on his property and he deals with Waste Management and he knew they tried to do a good job on his properties on EI Paseo. When they come down the alley, they lifted the dumpsters up and if it was windy stuff flew everywhere and he had to clean it up. He didn't think that was appropriate. He was also wondering where these would be faced and if he would now be seeing these trash dumpsters. He thought trash dumpsters should be located at the back of the property so they weren't close to any street persons because that was a problem and that way it wouldn't affect the neighbors like himself. The next issue was the restriction on the leases and hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Swajian had in his building a podiatrist, a dermatologist and a dentist. They all worked past 5:00 p.m. The dermatologist worked until 7:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. The podiatrist worked pretty late and the dentist worked at least until 5:00 p.m. Almost all of them were professionals in the city of Palm Desert or had dealt with clients or customers who were in the field and working during the day and only dealt with their services after hours, 4:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. and that was how they had all made their livelihood. He asked how they would police this 8:00 a.rn. to 5:00 p.m. time. The doctors he knew if they were working on someone and it was 5:00 '�" p.m. or 5:15 p.m. they would keep working and if they had people in 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 � � � ..ri their waiting room, they would take care of those people. If they had a dentist or an ob. gyn. and at 3:00 p.m. he went and detivered a baby, those patients would wait until 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. at night. They wouldn't run out of the building at 4:50 p.m. because they had to be out of the parking lot at 5:00 p.m. He asked how they would police that and if a code enforcement officer would be running around. He didn't think that was realistic. He thought it was much more realistic to build a building that was 17,000 square feet that had enough parking so they weren't policing it. He didn't think the developer would police it because he wanted to get his rent and the neighbors shouldn't be forced into the position of having to call a code enforcement officer when they saw doctors' office lights on. That was something that just wasn't realistic. On the question of shared doctors, if a doctor leased space and he was willing to pay the rent and he broke it up into offices, he might not even be a local guy and then would lease each one of the offices to another professional and their might be four or five doctors in some of this square footage. He didn't know since none of the leases were signed. They all knew it happened and it happened � because doctors like everyone else wanted to make more money and ' they would lease it. He had an issue in his building and he prohibited "� subleases where a podiatrist was leasing to a hair replacement person when he wasn't using the facility. He stopped it. He didn't know it was going on until the dermatologist told him. It happens and it would happen here and it happened everywhere but they were going to work past 5:00 p.m. They couldn't stop that kind of activity, whether it was a root canal, or if it was an orthodontist and the kids were getting out of school and they were late or had football practice and were coming in for their braces or whatever the situation was, they would come past 5:00 p.m. They all knew that so to prohibit past 5:00 p.m. he didn't know how they were going to enforce it. He really thought Mr. Rasmussen, and he had met with Mr. Rasmussen before, and staff needed to address those issues because there were going to be problems. Jillians parking was a problem, ihe easement issue was a problem, the 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. wasn't realistic and life just wasn't like that down he�e, and now that L.G.'s wanted to open a little bit earlier at 4:00 p.m. for drinks, then they would have staff there much earlier to do that too and if someone that came at 4:00 p.m. wanted to get a bite to eat, they would be served dinner. That was how the system always worked and there was no one there to stop it. He stated that he wanted a successful development next door, he didn`t 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 'i 999 .... want problems between neighbors, he didn't want problems with Jillians and he wanted to make things work as well as anyone else, but he felt those issues needed to be addressed and then come back before commission with reasonable solutions or have a decision made by the Planning Commission on how to solve some of these problems he raised. Again, he would have put his comments in a letter but he just received the staff report that afternoon. He thanked the commission for listening. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Rasmussen would like to readdress the commission with any rebuttal comments. Mr. Rasmussen said that obviously L.G.'s Steakhouse was open five years ago because there weren't two other buildings on the property and they had 300 and some parking spaces. He was granted a temporary luncheon type of scenario with the other two buildings not there and he did not do well at lunch and closed. Otherwise, he would � probably still have been open. That was why he temporarily opened but he had no intention or ability to open once these other buildings were in place. Mr. Rasmussen stated that he was the fee owner, half owner of this property that Mr. Swajian was talking about. He was not an easement owner. He had provided staff a copy of the title report. He was a fee owner. That was his property just as much as it was Mr. Swajian's and it wasn't part of this application. He thought the members of the commission could see through that. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Rasmussen was referring to the Jet Copy property. Mr. Rasmussen said yes. The "L" shaped property there. Mr. Swajian owned in fee simple the Jet Copy building and the "L" shaped parcel was owned one half by himself and one half 6y Mr. Swajian. Mr. Rasmussen had an easement right over it. Mr. Swajian did not have an easement right over Mr. Rasrnussen's property and it went back to several years ago. In the late 1980's the Jillians restaurant building signed an agreement that since they had an easement over this "L" shaped property, they would pay for everything. They would pay for resurfacing the parking lot. It was not related to their transaction in any � 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 � c s � t,� way, shape or form and any inference that they were cross related was fabrication. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification on the ownership and if Mr. Swajian owned the building. Mr. Rasmussen said that M�. Swajian owned the front building. Behind the "L" shaped property was Jillians restaurant and that was owned by Jillians. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the building was the Jet Copy building. Mr. Rasmussen concurred that that was one parcel. Then the "L" shaped parce) was a separate parcel and was only an access easement and it came with them as an unrelated parcel that was just passed down over the last ten years or so ago. They had no interest in it and in fact told Mr. Swajian that they would be glad to sell it to him. They didn't need it but they had an easement over it and it was a valuable � piece of property that appraised at 560,000 or 570,000. They weren't just going to give it Mr. Swajian, but if he wanted to buy it they were � ready to taik about it. The problem he was raising was the fact that there was an old Jillians building that was not in any way, shape or form related to their One EI Paseo project. They had no parking rights and they never would. They would never grant anyone easement or parking rights on their property. They weren't allowed to do it by code and Mr. Swajian was trying to save his rear end a little bit by saying that he has a small property that doesn't have enough parking and there was a restaurant there and what should he do and he was trying to say they should get together with the developer and maybe he can negotiate an easement to park some of Jillians parking or some of his parking over on their property and it wasn't going to happen. Mr. Rasmussen said they are the fee owners and it wasn't related to the property. There were absolutely, 100°!o-and they have met with the Fire Marshal--no code violations on either property for fire. They had gone through and app(ied through the Fire Marshal for this wall and had gotten that approved by the Fire Marshal. Any inference that there was ambulance or fire problems was a fabrication. There were no code problems because of putting in a wall along there. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 .... Chairperson Jonathan asked if the Fire Marshal specifically addressed the Jet Copy property in terms of there not being a problem. Mr. Rasmussen said the Fire Marshal addressed the One EI Paseo property and the wall and looked at the other property as well, but they didn't really ask him to do anything with it, fire sprinklers and whatnot. Mr. Swajian raised an issue with regards to property taxes and it was a non-related issue to this hearing. Jillians owes the taxes and Mr. Swajian was trying to say he did. It was a non-related issue and Jillians wasn't paying. The dumpsters he was talking about were built in 1991 under the original site permit and they weren't adding any more dumpsters. They were just cleaning up and using the existing dumpsters that have been there under the original application and the completion of the common area in 1991 . There were no extra dumpsters or whatnot that were being placed. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Rasmussen if he thought it would be to his � benefit to move the trash dumpsters a little more out of site toward the rear of the property. Mr. Rasmussen said they already were. They didn't want to move them because it would cost S20,000 or 530,000 and they were already block dumpsters that were full height that have full walk-ins that face their property, not Mr. Swajian's property, and relocating them would not accomplish anything. They were already well away from Mr. Swajian's property. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was not convinced that a 30-foot tall building really fit into the surrounding area. She would prefer to see a smaller building, perhaps even a single story building. She was also concerned with the amount of inedical/dental space. Again, she went back to the issue of satellite offices wF�ich were very common now for doctors to share offices and what it resulted in was twice as many patients in the waiting rooms. The parking at Kaiser would be 12 short if they decided to open for lunch. A 5:00 p.m. closing time for doctors that she visited was not realistic. There were r- always things that came up and reasons why they needed to stay open. A lot 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 0 y; J 7 � of doctors take appointments up until 5:00 p.m. Considering the fact that L.G.'s would like to open earlier, she felt this was in direct conflict and didn't feel it was in the best interest of the area. Commissioner Campbell said that being in the medical field before and her husband being a dentist, if they were going to be closed at 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m., the last appointment would be about half an hour before. You advise your staff not to take any later appointments so she didn't see any problem with that. If there were people in the waiting room waiting for some reason or another, at least there wouldn't be any more people coming to the office. Also, as far as Mr. Swajian was saying about EI Paseo and how he thinks EI Paseo looks so great, it did, but he wasn't really taking good care of the Jet Copy building. That was one bad spot on EI Paseo. She didn't have any problem with the height of the building and as she saw it with L.G.'s having a special Sunday brunch, those offices would be closed. A.G. Edward's would also be closed after 2:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. so she didn't see any problem with the parking situation at all. She would be in favor of the project. Mr. Drell said he wanted to clarify something tonight. The construction of the � building was not an issue tonight. This was a building that was approved in 1991 and all the improvements for that building other than the actual construction of it were completed then. All the parking was put in for a 20,000 square foot building. All the improvements for the pad were there so the issue before the commission was not whether that building could be built, but whether that building could be used as a medical office which by our code required extra parking. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was approved as a two-story office building. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan thanked staff for the clarification. Commissioner Lopez stated that the only concern he would have was if for whatever reasons either or both of the restaurants opened for lunch, down the line ten years from now L.G.'s might decide to go back into the luncheon business and as the community grows and the valley grows, the opportunity to succeed had better odds so he was concerned about the opportunity of lunch being served there. He was also concerned that at the last minute there was a request or expectation that they would open earlier for drinks and he guessed that was just doing business and was probably a good business move, but he had concern with it. Other than that he was comfortable with � the project itself. � 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 ... Commissioner Jonathan shared the concerns that were brought up about the intensity of the usage which would be related to the medical and dental offices. !f it was successful, and he has sat in waiting rooms and has been in offices where doctors share and that was the trend and they could end up with a situation that would tax even the six per 1 ,000 usage much less a special circumstance that surrounds this particular building. He thought that was a true potential problem. If he were comfortable that the building would shut down at 5:00 p.m., he could live with the situation and it would be a reasonable compromise, but he was concerned. He thought Mr. Swajian's comments in this regard were cogent and it was difficult to police. It would take someone seeing an office light on and calling Code or coming in and saying that they were in violation. It was a very difficult thing to police and these doctors were going to sign a lease agreement that says they have to close at 5:00 p.m. and then they were going to take 5:00 p.m. appointments or 6:00 p.m. appointments and he believed they would do it until someone told them not to. They were creating a problem and he wasn't sure how he wanted to go with it but he had concerns. He would certainly not exacerbate that problem by allowing L.G.'s to open earlier. He thought that would totally � defeat the purpose of the compromise they were trying to reach. They had to make the assumption that a 4:00 p.m. bar opening would be successful and that meant a lot of cars and a lot of people. It was a much more intensive use than dining and right at the time for the most popular time for medical appointments which was late afternoon; it was after work and after school, before soccer practice so �ight at the most intense moment they would be creating a larger demand on the parking spaces. He would be very opposed to the earlier opening. Sunday brunch on holiday weekends would be fine for obvious reasons. The rest of Mr. Swajian's comments he thought were largely unrelated to the medical/dental use that the case was about. He would like to see the Jet Copy property improved, like to see that whole situation improved, as much as Mr. Swajian would like to see a main tenant in there so they had the same goal there. If it was just office, use the matter wouldn't be before them. The reason it was is because people wiser than them perceived a potential problem with medical and dental usage in terms of the intensity of usage and the burden it placed on parking. That was why they were here and going through the process. He asked for direction from the commission. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would be in favor except for L.G.'s opening before 5:30 p.m. Chairperson Jonathan noted that would be as presented by staff with the modification to the time restriction that would �- allow Sunday brunch on holiday weekends. Commissioner Campbell 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 f i 3 � concurred. Regarding the enforcement issue, Mr. Drell said that practicaliy speaking he would not necessarily be worried about whether there was a light on. They would be worried about a parking problem. The assumption would be that between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. there might be some abuse but the restaurant, especially a steakhouse, didn't really gear up and hit its stride until 7:00-7:30 p.m., so it was probably only going at half speed and, therefore, if they had even half of the doctors operating at half speed, at that middle point they were still probably not going to have a problem. That was what they would be looking for. If there was a problem they would go back and ask why there was a problem. If it was because the doctors were open until 6:00 p.m. and that was the reason why there was a problem or if they see that L.G.'s is opening his bar at 4:00 p.m. then they would do what they had to do whenever they have to enforce the zoning ordinance and threaten them with the City Attorney. Again, that was what happened with why in a typical retail center that was parked four per 1 ,000 they could have 20% restaurant was because between 11 :00 a.m. and 1 :30 p.m. there was a shifting of uses. He agreed that until we know what the situation is that L.G.'s should be restricted to the 5:30 p.m. time. , Commissioner Finerty pointed out that in the conditions of approval it said � L.G.'s would not open before 5:00 p.m. Mr. Rasmussen said L.G.`s lease said 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Lopez asked if Mr. Smith would read back the proposed condition number 7. Mr. Smith said that the applicant would be required to submit a parking management plan to delineate employee parking areas, valet areas and hours and other parking related issues to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Mr. Drell said the reason for that was because most of the parking was considerable distance from the buildings and they want to insure there is adequate patient parking c{oser to the bui{ding for the medical uses and make sure if and when the valet kicks in that they don't start fighting with each other. Commissioner Finerty noted that the staff report indicated that the restaurants currently open at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Commissioner Campbell's comment was in the form of a motion. She said yes and moved for approval with the exception of allowing L.G.'s to open early for cocktails. Chairperson Jonatha� asked if that included the addition of condition number seven and with the modification to condition number four. Mr. Drell said they would be allowing him to stay open on holidays but not open early. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that was Sunday brunches on holiday ; weekends. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Commissioner Lopez stated � that he would second that motion. � 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 � Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1926, approving CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 Amendment #2, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-1 . Chairperson Jonathan wished Mr. Rasmussen good luck and indicated that besides staff, he was sure the neighbors would police the situation and if there were any problems the commission wanted to hear about them so they could be corrected. � D. Case Nos. GPA 99-1, C/Z 99-1, PP/CUP 99-6 and Development Agreement - RAYMOND T. TROLL, Applicant �... Request for approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay, zone change to add senio� overlay designation, a precise plan and conditional use permit, development agreement and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to a 76-unit senior Iage 62 and older) apartment project on 3.38 acres on the west side of California Avenue, south of New York Avenue, 77-080 California Avenue. Mr. Smith noted that plans were on display. The site is zoned R-2 4,000 which would pe�mit apartment units at a rate of one unit per every 4,000 square feet. It is designated medium density 5-7 units per acre in the general plan. He noted that the site was an irregularly shaped 3.3 acre site on the west side of California. The applicant was proposing a total of seven buildings on the site. They have three one-story buildings in the form of building one, building two and building six. Building six was at the north end of the site adjacent to the parking lot for the golf club and restaurant at the country club. Buildings one and two were adjacent to single family homes to the south. The one story recreation buiiding was located in the central portion of the site. Buildings three, four and five were shown as two story buildings. They were currently 25 feet in height. In order to meet code they would need to be reduced to 24 feet maximum height. There would be two points of access to � California. Mr. Smith pointed out the locations on the map. He said the plan 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 � � � would include a total of 95 parking spaces. Code requirement would be 76, one space per unit. As shown the plan proposed 48 covered and 47 open. Staff was suggesting that they provide one covered space per unit. It might eliminate some problems in the future. Building architecture was as shown in the renderings. The single story at 18 feet and the two story mentioned earlier which was currentiy 25 and would need to come down to 24 feet. The project received preliminary approval by the Architectural Review Commission. He indicated that on building three ARC had some problems with the flatness of the architecture and while it wasn't reflected on the display drawings, there had been some roof modifications to improve it. There was a total of 48 units in two story buildings and 28 units in one story buildings. In the Senior Overlay District, which was what the applicant was requesting through the general plan amendment and zone change, density was a function of the projected population in the project. Projects between two and a half and ten acres were permitted a maximum density of 40 persons per acre when a project has a minimum age stipulation of 62 years. That formula gave them a total of 135 people on this site maximum. The project as proposed came in at 130 persons. That was based on the number of studio units, the number of one bedroom units and the number of two bedroom units. The density � increase was granted through the senior overlay. In this instance they were increasing the total number of units from approximately 37 up to 76 and it did not go without a cost. The cost in this instance was that the applicant must provide for affordable housing in the project. He has two ways of addressing that issue. In this instance code prescribed ten percent of the units at moderate levels and ten percent of the units at low income levels which was a total of 15 units. The applicant could either provide those units and reserve them in perpetuity for people who fit those income levels and meet the rent levels specified for 1999 or he could make a one time payment of $12,000 per unit which was consistent with what the city did for the Portofino development most recently before this commission. The draft development agreement was also before the commission and it tied in the rent controls and affordable units and the moderate and lows and specified a certain number of units in each category. That was outlined more precisely on page 4 of the staff report and also indicated the rent levels for the moderate and lower income units. A draft Negative Declaration of Envi�onmental Impact was prepared and staff recommended that Planning Commission recommend its certification to City Council. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions along with the associated development agreement. � � 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 ` Chairperson Jonathan o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RON GREGORY, the project landscape architect, 74-020 Alessandro Drive, Suite E, in Palm Desert, informed commission that he was at the meeting because the applicant was ill. He said his involvement in the project had clearly been with the tandscape architectural aspects of the project. The applicant asked Mr. Gregory to mention that the Palm Desert Golf Association which represents a community of about 2,000 homes in the area did give unanimous support through the President, Marilyn Hamlet, to this development and the applicant wanted to make sure he mentioned that tonight. He asked if there were any questions and said he would try to answer them. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the matter. MS. BETTY HESSE, 77-245 Indiana Avenue, said her home was right � around the corner. She asked if this was the first hearing on this matter. Chairperson Jonathan confirmed that it was the first hearing of the Planning Commission. It had previously been presented to the architectural committee. Ms. Hesse said she would really be glad to see something on that site because they get a lot of dust and a lot of it came from that land and she was very close to that so she would be quite happy to see something there. She said she had a couple of questions that she hoped the commission would be taking into consideration. She said she did know about politics and if the rain drains on your property, you are very concerned and if it doesn't you couldn't care less but it was people like the commissioners that had to look at both sides of things. Right now along California Avenue in the early morning it was like an athletic track. Everyone went out walking. It was difficult to walk along that portion of the street because the Palm Desert Villas across the street from this land parked on both sides of the street. They have a parking lot in the back but it didn't take into consideration that those units have been there for years and years and never thought that everyone would need two cars and maybe three. So they parked on both sides of t.• California and if they were going to be walking toward the clubhouse, 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 a � � .� they had to walk in the street and they had to go around those cars. The reason they had to walk in the street was because there was no sidewalk on the side of the street where this project is. She certainly expected that there would be a sidewalk there. She understood how the design showed the project's cars being parked and hoped it would be enough with everyone having two cars. She was also interested in the ways the cars would go in and out. She lives on Indiana and her house was between California and Elkhorn. It was a really nice street and she likes it and they have really nice neighbors and can go out into the middle of the street sometimes and talk. They understood they had to watch for cars, but on the other hand they didn't want a whole bunch of cars all zooming down their street to get to Elkhorn which was a place they could get closer to Fred Waring and she worried about that. There were a couple of kids that lived in a house or were visiting, but if cars were going to be coming down that street she felt it would really change their lifestyle. If they get up in the morning to play golf, they would go down that way. They might be going to work, but if this was a retirement center she thought most of them would not work but � would be out on the golf course. She thought it was great that they � could use their golf carts now to go to the shopping center but she didn't do that any more because there was so much traffic and it was hard enough to avoid the cars when they were walking but when they were in a cart they didn't have it. She also wanted them to think about that when this was planned. She thought those issues were very vital to those who walk along the street and those that were trying to protect their own little neighborhoods and knew the commission would do their very best to include all of these questions. She thanked the commission for listening. Chairpe�son Jonathan thanked Ms. Hesse for taking the time to come to the meeting. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Gregory wished to readdress the commission. Mr. Gregory didn't recall if a sidewalk was called out. Mr. Drell stated that it was Public Works Condition No. 15, and was required. Mr. Greenwood said sidewalks in residential areas were six feet and it would � probably not be meandering in this case. t � 28 MINUTES PAlM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 +� Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification on the direction of the ingress/ egress. Mr. Greenwood said that per the site plan each of the driveways would have ingress and egress. The two parking lots were joined. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that staff said all the parking would be covered. Mr. Smith said that staff suggested a condition to that effect. Mr. Drell said it wasn't all. Mr. Smith said it was one to one. Chairperson Jonathan said that would be 76 covered and 22 uncovered. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Campbell asked if staff anticipated that a lot of these seniors would just have one car. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mr. Drell indicated this was the standard used and there have been around 250 senior units built. Commissioner Campbell asked if it would be similar to Las Serenas. Mr. Drell concurred that it would be like that one and the project on Catalina. Commissioner Campbell said she didn't see anything wrong with the project and would recommend approval. � Commissioner Finerty said she drove out there and the surrounding area was basicaiiy single story and she would prefer to see fewer units and all single story, especially when they were restricting the age to 62 years old. That meant that with all the groceries and shopping from everywhere else, those packages had to be toted all the way up the stairs for seniors and that didn't make sense to her. She would be opposed and would ask the applicant to consider fewer units and all single story. Mr. Drell asked if Mr. Gregory knew if there would be elevators in the two story units. Mr. Gregory said there would be elevators. Chairperson Jonathan said he would normally share the concern expressed about the density, but he thought that was the actual and precise purpose of the Senior Overlay zone and in this particular case it was a good place for it. He would not object to the density. He thought that getting 76 covered spaces made sense and hoped the motion for approval would contain that provision. The height limit didn't require any special condition because that was simply a requirement to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked for a motion. Commissioner Campbell said she would move approval with the 76-covered spaces. Commissioner Lopez seconded. �,..� 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 ' � � a�i Action• It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, , � approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1927, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 99-1 , C/Z 99-1 , PP/CUP 99-6 and the Development Agreement, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (May 20, 1999) Commissioner Campbell noted that Kurt Wenner, the street painter, ` completed his work at The Gardens. It was completed a week ago � Sunday. She indicated that the committee also approved the work by Michael Watling for the San Pablo water work project. There was a well built there and they would have petroglyphs. She stated that even though the committee did approve it, it would be shown to the different bands of Indians for review. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meetingl C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (May 19, 1999) Commissioner Campbell said they discussed sidewalk special sale signage. When signs were totally obscured from public streets and # located on private property, the committee had no objection to special � signs as long as the signs were only displayed during certain times of 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 ..■► the year. The committee also suggested that specific criteria be developed such as size, location, the hours and number of times when the sign would be posted during the year or during the season and as long as it wouldn't be visible from the public right-of-way. They were mostly talking about uses like Oshman's in the Desert Crossing center. She said they also discussed signs for office buildings versus retail buildings. The One E! Paseo building at the southeast corner of El Paseo and Highway 11 1 was discussed. It was suggested that a monument sign that would list the tenants would be better, rather than littering the whole building. She said the code should not be amended and everything should be considered on a case to case basis. Also, one of the council members that was on the committee suggested that a fountain effect like the EI Paseo Collection would be good for that location. XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Jonathan indicated that the annual luncheon of chairpersons for city committees and commissions would be meeting with council Friday and ~ asked the commissioners to call him with any issues they wanted him to convey or bring up. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. __� _ -�.,/1 ��• 1 PHILIP DREL Secretary ATTEST: SABBY JON AN, Chairperson Palm Desert Plan ing Commission ... /tm 31