Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1116 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 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 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez %IW Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Jeff Winklepleck, Parks and Recreation Planning Manager Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the November 2, 1999 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the November 2, 1999 minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None. .. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Y y1 1 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. Vill. 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. CUP 99-8 - CAESAR'S EMPEROR, Applicant (Continued from November 2, 1999) Request for approval of a conditional use permit for a 10,000 square foot restaurant and, after 9:00 p.m., a bar, lounge and "W nightclub with dancing including live music and disc jockeys in the building located at 72-600 Dinah Shore Drive. Mr. Drell informed commission that there was a request from the applicant's attorney who fell ill today and requested a postponement to December 7, 1999, the next meeting. Mr. Drell said there wasn't a problem with the continuance from staff's point of view and recommended the continuance. Chairperson Jonathan asked if any commission members would be absent. Everyone indicated they would be there. Commissioner Beaty asked staff how many times this item could be continued. Mr. Drell said he would expect that this was the last time. Commissioner Beaty felt that needed to be communicated to the applicant. If Mr. Koller could not be present, he needed to send a representative. Mr. Drell said he understood. Chairperson Jonathan said it appeared that all commissioners were expected to be at the meeting. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Jonathan left the public hearing open and asked for a motion. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing CUP 99-8 to December 7, 1999 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3 - PEARL INDUSTRIES INC., Applicant (Continued from November 2, 1999) Request for approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay, approval of a change of zone from PR-7 (planned residential 7 units per acre) to PR-7 S.O. (planned residential senior overlay), precise plan of design/conditional use permit (including a height exception for the three (3) story portion, development agreement and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates to a proposed 250 unit continuing care retirement community and a community center taw building on 10.3 acres north of Fairhaven Drive south of Parkview Drive at 72-755 Parkview Drive. Mr. Smith stated that the acreage in question is 10.3 acres. He indicated that the commission received two reports dated November 16, 1999. One as recently as this morning and the commission received a revised resolution and draft development in the commission packets. As well, they received all of the material they received previously and all of any additional written correspondence previously received. Mr. Smith informed commission that it was not his intention to go over the entire project again. He did not that they were now dealing with a 250-unit continuing care facility on 10.3 acres. The most recent renderings and elevations of the buildings were on display. He pointed out the rendering which was presented to the Architectural Review Commission last Tuesday. At that time ARC granted preliminary approval subject to the finished elevations reflecting the detail shown in that rendering. When it was here on November 2, the commission continued the matter because the neighbors asked for additional time to review the revised proposal. He stated that the revised included the additional detailing on the rendering. It also included deletion of surface parking in the area along Fairhaven Drive, where 32 spaces were removed in favor of landscaping, and at the entry from Parkview Drive the most recent plan deleted 31 parking spaces and replaced that area with landscape area. The landscape areas along Fairhaven and 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Parkview were now of sufficient size to provide for four foot high berms with trees and with a four-foot masonry wall located on the top of the berm. All of the tower elements that were on the earlier presentations have been deleted so what they were now dealing with was a three-story building 25 feet above the adjacent curb height except for the community center building which was 28 feet high. As noted, the neighbors asked for an opportunity to review this further and it was staff's understanding that they got together this past Sunday and through conversations with various people was given to understand that the neighbors gave to the applicant a list of 28 operating conditions. He had not yet seen those conditions or heard how the applicant responded to them. As indicated in the most recent report, the applicant at some point offered to acquire and remodel two properties in the neighbhood as part of this negotiation. ARC granted preliminary approval November 9. Several area residents attended that meeting and presented two new ideas; at least they were new at that time. Firstly, the possible vacation of Fairhaven Drive to allow for more landscape planting. There was also a suggestion that they look at a landscape median in Parkview Drive. Both issues were discussed with engineering staff. Regarding the street vacation on Fairhaven, they felt that could be accomplished if there was a unanimous request from the people effected. With respect to the landscape median idea on Parkview, there just seemed to be too many driveways in close proximity to go in and do that and that was just on a preliminary basis that they took that position. Staff recommendation was that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council. The commission had a revised draft resolution and development agreement in their packet. It was quite likely that following testimony from the residents and applicant that the commission might be adding some conditions. Staff's recommendation was that the commission recommend approval to the City Council subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHARLIE SWEET, 43-708 Virginia Avenue in Palm Desert, and MR. DAVID MOORHEAD, representing Pearl Development, addressed the commission. Mr. Moorhead stated that they were pleased to announce that the process does work as it was talked about at the last meeting. They have had numerous meetings with the neighbors with the last being a barbeque at Judi and Jerry Rogers' house this past Sunday. They did not go there to hear, but to listen. To take that to heart, they 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 took suggested changes and made compromises with the residents and whereas at this point they didn't have 100% agreement, he thought the commission would hear later from neighbors who were previously opposed to the project that they were very close in the right direction. They heard several concerns, those being an increase in traffic versus the single family neighborhood, delivery trucks coming in at all hours of the night making quite a bit of noise, Parkview versus Fairhaven as an entrance. Some neighbors wanted Parkview as the entrance to the facility. Others wanted Fairhaven, depending upon where they lived. There was a concern regarding taxi van shuttles that would be shuttling these residents to and from different places in the city. Building height was an issue and had been. Density. Commercial usage of the facility was a large issue. One that was probably an umbrella over all these issues was this project's impact on the neighborhood's home values. Regarding the home value issue, he believed there was some good evidence that would alleviate concerns in that area. They also agreed as Mr. Smith noted, to put their money where their mouth is and invest in the neighborhood in some properties that needed some remodeling to improve the neighborhood's overall appearance and value of each and every home there. Their rationale for that was not only that it helps the local neighbors of their facility, but particularly their planned director of this project they would like he or she to be located very close to the facility. It would cut down on maintenance costs in a lot of areas to have a manager or director close by. To go over specific issues regarding what they have done to alleviate the concerns, he asked Mr. Sweet to address those. Mr. Sweet believed the commission was familiar with a lot of the changes made so he would try to be brief in his recap. He said they originally planned primary ingress and egress from Fairhaven. They deleted that and all the primary ingress and egress would be off of Parkview Drive, including the service entry, which would be at the west end of the property near One Quail Place. The project would have no access whatsoever from Fred Waring Drive or Fairhaven except for emergency fire access as required by the Fire Marshal. In other regards to traffic, they have reduced all street parking on the subject property which was on Fairhaven and Parkview. They now had only 56 surface parking stalls which were around the porte cache of the community center and 318 parking stalls subterranean. They designed four foot berms as well as four foot masonry walls, trees and landscaping along 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 s Fairhaven and Parkview, so virtually the project would not be viewable from Parkview or Fairhaven. The skilled nursing facility had been deleted entirely. This would result in all the traffic on Parkview and Fairhaven would be emergency traffic only. There had been some concerns from Rancho Mirage residents about overbearing traffic by using Parkview Drive. The City of Palm Desert current traffic average daily counts showed 5,200 automobiles both east and west on a 24- hour cycle. Both Planning and Engineering Department at the City of Rancho Mirage as of this morning had indicated to him that they do not have any studies of Parkview Drive, so they had to rely on the Palm Desert numbers. Palm Desert engineers said that Parkview was designed to carry currently 25,000 to 30,000 automobiles per day. This project would probably add 1 ,200 trips per day and the City of Palm Desert verified that since the last meeting by doing a traffic count over at Hacienda de Monterey. That traffic count came out to 1,200 cars per day and that was a comparable project in size and density. Regarding the residential buildings, they lowered the grade of the land by five feet. They reduced the building heights so that the residential buildings at maximum were 25 feet above curb and 120 foot setback from curb. The two story buildings would be 15 feet above curb and 60 foot setback on Fairhaven, 38 foot setback on Parkview. They removed all tower elements from both the community center and residential buildings. As far as reduction of the total density of the project, they originally applied for 286 residential dwelling units and were not at 250 residential units and they deleted the 99-bed skilled nursing facility. In listening to the neighbors, which had been very beneficial, they heard the proposed complaints of noise, traffic, odors, ambulance sirens, etc., and they could go back and forth and argue those issues all day long because they were real issues and they would like to be good neighbors. What they did was put their running shoes on and polled house to house the entire neighborhood around Hacienda de Monterey. They did this last Saturday and showed the commission a diagram of the homes that they contacted. They asked each resident a battery of questions. He said they were essentially questions that came to them from their neighbors. They felt it would make a lot of sense to ask the people who live next to these facilities for a matter of years. They had 54 responses. The first question was, "Does Hacienda generate excessive or bothersome vehicular traffic?" They all answered, "No." "Does Hacienda produce any produce any excessive noise at any time day or night?" The 54 residents answered, "No." 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 "Has Hacienda produced any siren problems from ambulances?" They all answered, "No." Several made comments that there were more ambulances on Highway 1 1 1 and Monterey. "Do you know of any local neighbors complaining to each other or to the City about Hacienda de Monterey?" They all answered, "No." "Has the density of Hacienda caused any negative effects on the neighbors?" Mr. Sweet noted that they had 231 dwelling units there plus a skilled nursing facility. They all answered, "No." "Does Hacienda produce odors of any sort bothersome to the area?" They all answered, "No" except for one fellow who lives on San Diego Drive right next to the facility. Twice he smelled odors and he said he thought their chef was French because it really smelled good. The next question was, "Has Hacienda reduced your property value?" They all answered, "No." Most of them, "Absolutely not." "Do you and your friends or family may have a need to live at Hacienda at some point in your life?" About half answered, "Yes" and some answered that they have had relatives live there. "Is Hacienda a compatible use of property in your neighborhood?" They all answered, "Yes." "Are you pleased that Hacienda has no overall negative influences to your neighborhood?" They all answered, "Yes." These were the proposed questions that came to them from their neighbors and they did their best to find factual data by asking the people who live there. In the meantime, his Father, Roland Sweet, who was present this evening, unbeknownst to them, took a very similar poll over at The Carlotta. He polled about 50 homes and had 23 responses. He had similar questions regarding traffic, noise, odors, neighborhood vermin, and if living adjoining next to a retirement community have any other effects. All comments were positive. Everyone had a good word to say about The Carlotta. He submitted that to the Planning Commission to try and diffuse some of the fears of living next to or nearby a retirement community. In short, as Mr. Moorhead mentioned, they had the barbeque, they discussed their proposed operations agreement and it was something they could live with, spare a few minor details that he knew they would come to an agreement on, and their willingness to put financing into upgrading their neighborhood was only better for their project as well. He respectfully submitted that asked if he could answer any questions. Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Sweet said that Hacienda de Monterey had 231 units plus a skilled nursing facility. She asked how large the skilled nursing facility was. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 i Mr. Sweet said it was over 80 beds, but didn't know the exact number. Mr. Drell said it was 99 beds. Commissioner Finerty asked how many stories Hacienda de Monterey had. Mr. Sweet said they had two stories, 22 feet high with 80 foot setbacks. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. NANCY SINGER thanked the commission for the opportunity to speak again about this project. She said she had a couple of comments regarding Mr. Sweet's comments. She didn't know whom he spoke to at Rancho Mirage, but she had a copy of their traffic survey that they faxed to her. It showed that Parkview was designed for 13,000 cars per day, not the numbers he gave. This came directly from Rancho Mirage City Hall. Secondly, on his survey that he did of Hacienda, they x would love 80 foot setbacks--give them 80 foot setbacks off of two Parkview and 80 foot setbacks off of Fairhaven. They would all be delighted. She didn't think she needed to go through her written presentation since the commissioners all had a copy, but they were still concerned. Regarding the drawings, there was one that several of them were seeing for the first time. Once again, new drawings before a public body where the community had not seen them. She asked how many times they had to go through this and how many times they had to bring it up. In her presentation she set forth certain conditions that they were asking for on pages three and four of the presentation. Possibly the biggest one was the last one. It said to direct the developer to give the community the information in sufficient time to review it. That was one of the things they were asking for. They were willing to work with him. The commission knew that and the developer knew that, but they just couldn't keep taking these surprises. They asked that either this be continued so that they could review it again, or something else occur. They were obviously not in favor of this exactly the way it is presented. It was too massive. If the commission looked at the drawings, they showed the massiveness. Mr. Sweet talked about the four foot wall and four-foot berm. The drawing showed a very low wall and no berm, so even the drawing presented 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 tonight didn't agree with what he testified. They were confused and were asking for current information. Chairperson Jonathan noted that he didn't hear anything that varied from the last meeting and asked for clarification. When Ms. Singer was being hit with surprises, he asked what she was specifically referring to. Ms. Singer said that things kept changing. The skilled nursing. Two meetings ago there was a skilled nursing facility. They now found out that Mr. Sweet had sold the land long before then and why he was still showing it, they didn't know. Chairperson Jonathan said he would be more specific. At the last meeting Ms. Singer brought up the skilled nursing facility. At the last meeting the applicant indicated that was deleted. Ms. Singer noted that Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Sweet about skilled nursing and he confirmed that they would have some. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that Mr. Sweet testified that there would be skilled nursing services. Ms. Singer asked where. That was what they were asking. Where would it be in the community. Chairperson Jonathan explained that Mr. Sweet indicated there would be skilled nursing services for the residents in the 250 units. He said the skilled nursing facility being gone wasn't a surprise because the applicant indicated that was deleted at the last meeting. He asked what the other issues were. Ms. Singer said that looking at the drawings today, the landscaping was different from the last time they saw it and was even different from what Mr. Sweet just said it would be. He had done surveys of the community and, unfortunately, she was not at the barbeque last Sunday because she was in Boston at her granddaugter's birthday party. But she knew these surveys weren't discussed at the party because she had talked with some of the people. That again was a surprise to those of them in the community. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan felt the additional berming was addressed and asked if there was another aspect of the landscaping. Ms. Singer said she didn't see it on the chart. She looked at the chart today and it didn't agree. Chairperson Jonathan said she didn't see it, but there wasn't a change in landscaping that was a surprise to her. She was saying that she didn't see it on the plans. Ms. Singer pointed out that Mr. Sweet was saying that the chart on display was the most current chart. Chairperson Jonathan asked if specifically in terms of changes to the landscaping, if there was anything. Ms. Singer said they would like to see what it would look like. They still hadn't seen it. They would like to see setbacks. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anything else that was a surprise. Ms. Singer said that there had been so many drawings presented, so much stated that they hadn't seen in writing ahead of time to review, it didn't give them the opportunity to really make informed concessions with him. Some of them have been and there was no question about it. They weren't opposed to senior housing and would rather see single family residences on this property. There was no question about that. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that it wasn't so much that there were surprises or changes tonight as it was that she felt she hasn't been presented with an opportunity to review the final presentation. Ms. Singer concurred. She said they hadn't seen the information and were still concerned with the massiveness of the project and that it didn't fit into the community. Chairperson Jonathan thanked Ms. Singer for her comments. MR. DON GITTELSON, 72-791 Fleetwood Circle in Palm Desert, stated that his home was in the Monterey Sands development north and east 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 of this project. He said he built it 20 years ago and he had been a resident here ever since. His primary concern was density. The existing property had a 70 U prescribed density and he agreed with the senior overlay concept of allowing a benefit for some additional density because of senior overlay problems. He didn't think that overlay should get them much beyond ten or 12 units to the acre, not 25 as now planned. The existing zone on Number One Quail was about 20 units to the acre. He wasn't sure of that number but thought it was close. The existing zone on the east side, single story apartments, was about seven units to the acre. It seemed to him that it would be reasonable to split the difference. If .they had 20 on one side and seven on the other side that would mean about 12 or 13 would be a reasonable density for the existing project. His second concern related to the buffer zone to help the people from the north in Rancho Mirage would be the median concept in Parkview Drive. He thought the quick answer of there are too many driveways did not give them enough time to study and understand it and that was an open item that could be done by the cities, their engineering departments, and it took more than a few days to resolve that issue and he was well aware of that. The third concern, and he only mentioned the vacation of Fairhaven as an added opportunity for the residents of the single family area, to help buffer the project from their residences. That part was purely up to them and didn't impact him or his neighbors in any way, shape or form. He did think that architecturally the building was mis-oriented, but if they were going to originally plan the building they would put the recreation center on Parkview Drive in the middle and put an access in the middle or near the middle so that they could line up the access to the existing property to the north. That was another item that didn't impact him at all but he thought it was a good design consideration. In final comment, he didn't have any idea what the 28 conditions were, whether they were acceptable to the parties or not, and he had had no opportunity to either see them, read them, understand them or see whether he could agree or disagree with them. He thanked the commission. MS. JUDI ROGERS, 43-840 Fairhaven Drive, stated that her home was possibly one of the most impacted by this proposed facility. She said that yes, they had the barbeque because they told the commission they would and they needed the time and the atmosphere to get their neighbors to come and see the project. The developer rose balloons at various stages of the project showing the berm, the wall, the trees, and 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 P the heights and setbacks of the buildings. She said it was hard to tell with a white balloon up against the sky, but they did get somewhat of an idea of the setbacks and that was reassuring. Again, their primary concern with everything they had discussed with the developer had been that they were really being asked to put the cart before the horse. They loved what the developer had done so far to mitigate some of the concerns that they have had. They didn't have anything in writing. They were concerned that things could change when they weren't quite as available to be at these meetings and find out and continue to hear what was going on. They were lay people and didn't understand the democratic process of this meeting, of these approvals, and that sort of thing. What they would ideally like to see in their neighborhood was senior housing. They loved that idea. They were a known quantity. They were wonderful human beings given that our youth in this day and age weren't something to brag about, the seniors were people they absolutely admire. She thought she spoke for everyone here. They didn't worry about a lot of things with them that they would with condominiums, single family residences, people working on cars in their neighborhood, teenagers racing up and down, etc. Could they live with a senior facility nearby? Yes, they could. Their concern was that this building at some portions of it were 1 ,350 feet long. Three stories high concerned them, 250 units concerned them. They asked the developer to explain why they couldn't go to two stories. The developer indicated that it did not work out for them. She raised issue with the landscaping. She agreed it would be beautiful for them and their neighborhood. They already had wide open desert to look at which they loved, but in its absence the vegetation would be welcome. The vacation of Fairhaven would be wonderful for them, obviously. One of the architecture people pointed out though that if this project didn't go in and they did have a landscape easement, they could at some point be subject to having housing very near to their house, rather than farther away, like the senior center was projecting. Would this be a transitional buffer from commercial development to their neighborhood? They didn't think so. Having an entrance off of Fairhaven would definitely be detrimental and that had been mitigated. She hoped it would always be that way. She said that as a citizen if they were to put their wholehearted support behind this project, she asked where they would stand when they wanted something to be taken care of as far as a concern that they have. What if they were two years into building and they had some issues and they needed to get them resolved. She asked 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 if they had to hire an attorney at their own expense and come back to the city and say this wasn't what was agreed on or if they had a right to step in. The 28 things they came up with were a compilation of several facts that had been part of neighborhoods that have had commercial development come inside. She said she had a copy to give the commission that they have written up, but various things like delivery hours limited from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Landscape maintenance shall occur from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., not on weekends. The restaurant would not be open to the general public. There would be no lighting above the perimeter walls. They didn't see the need for them to have lighting above the perimeter walls. They had driven by various other facilities and had been basically amazed at how the neighborhood was impacted by the lighting from certain facilities. It looked like daylight at 9:00 p.m. They didn't want that. All loading docks must be enclosed. Noise control restrictions. Post signs requiring all loading doors remain closed. Requires all engines to be shut off if a delivery vehicle was parked more than five minutes. Prohibit all horn blowing, loud talking, loud radios. Prohibit the use of forklifts, exiting exhausts and any other mechanical equipment must be located in or directly adjacent to the main building structures. Prohibit the parking of delivery trucks. Require that refrigeration equipment mounted on trucks be shut down while they were delivering. Remain on no longer than one hour. The trash collection use the maintenance road closer to One Quail instead of their neighborhood. At 5:00 a.m. they hear them now on the various commercial developments nearby them. All onsite vehicles be clean natural gas or electric so they didn't have to whiff diesel fuel. Property owner maintain perimeter/interior landscaping in a healthy and living condition. That all entrances, main service and emergency, be approved by all necessary agencies, especially the city Fire Marshal, to ensure that Fairhaven would not be considered as an entry to the facility other than for emergency purposes. Those were things they had come up with just as lay people doing their research. They didn't know what else might come about for a facility of this size. They appreciated the developer's willingness to put in landscaping to cover it up. A question she continued to have was why they needed to cover it up. The possibility of them putting their money where their mouth is a buying into their neighborhood meant a lot to them. It meant that basically they would have a few more houses in their neighborhood that were worth $350,000 like she has and like Mr. and Mrs. Scarna have and several other people who 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 were rehabbing right now. Then they spoke of a development agreement that they had been handed and she wondered if that was available to the public and if the residents could see what they had given to the commission to decide. She knew what they told them, but wanted to see what they had decided. Finally, they would respectfully request that they have the ability to have an open door policy for future concerns that might come up. This was a three-year building project and then it would be forever more a commercial project and they would like to know that they could come and raise their issues and not have it be said that this was a done deal and that it was done. Chairperson Jonathan informed Ms. Rogers that the development agreement was available to the general public. If she wanted to pick one up, there might be copies available tonight and certainly first thing in the morning at the Planning Department. In terms of recourse for any problems, there were a number of avenues for it. For people who don't know the democratic process, he thought Ms. Rogers was utilizing the process very well. That was what this was all about. In terms of any recourse, when a project is approved, particularly when subject to a conditional use permit, then there were various conditions of approval and they were all listed in the public documents that were part of this application, things that the applicant had agreed to, the standards the applicant was subject to, in addition to the normal Zoning Ordinance standards. All those were standards that any developer was held to once a project was approved. Sometimes staff immediately becomes aware of violations and they take care of it directly and sometimes they relied on citizens to report any violations. There was a reporting process and it began with staff and with the city, but she heard him at the beginning of the meeting that if there were any items not on the agenda, this was the time and place to talk about them. Once in a while they had people come up and say hey, I have a problem with this and this situation and then they deal with it. Hopefully effectively. There were various recourses available if anyone feels a developer has not complied with conditions of approval. Mr. Drell pointed out that typically citizens didn't need an attorney and were far better advocates as citizens of Palm Desert than attorneys from L.A. Chairperson Jonathan agreed. MR. KEN SAVAGE, Pastor at University Baptist Church, 72-700 Fred Waring Drive, stated that their church and congregation had a stake in this project because they were selling the developer a half acre. In exchange they were getting a new parking lot that would meet city 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 rr.. code that was properly lit and landscaped. It would clean up the corner of Fairhaven and Fred Waring. They would underground the power lines which would certainly be attractive to Fred Waring in that area. They were part of the neighborhood and it would enhance the neighborhood. He had been hard pressed to see why this wasn't a win-win situation for everyone because he couldn't imagine a more benign neighborhood than a senior's development. They entered this thinking it would be good for all and they still felt that way. He said he would like to share some of concerns as he heard some of the things discussed along the way. At the very first meeting at the Realtor's Board, a group of people there were very angry. That sort of puzzled him a bit. It was like road rage in a building. He wanted to let the commission know that one person said "over my dead body will this project happen." He said he didn't want to take responsibility for that person's suicide so he wanted to pass that along to the commission and he was concerned because Dr. Kavorkian was no longer present since he was in jail and they guy would have to do it on his own. That did bother him and was a concern. He lived in Los Angeles in the 60's in a changing i..r neighborhood and people were very concerned about property values. That was a code word for race. People occasionally said why don't they stay in South Central Los Angeles, why are they ruining our neighborhood, and that always bothered him that property values could be a code word for different things. He had been bothered by statements made before the commission. He knew one person said the project belonged near the freeway. That bothered him. He wasn't sure what was behind that but he wished someone would explain it to him. Furthermore, since the beginning everyone had been so concerned about their view. His sister lives in Sedona. They designed their house so that every window would view a red rock formation. Their picture window looks right out at Bell Rock. It was a beautiful view. He looked across at Fairhaven at the four houses on Fairhaven and even those houses that have a Fairhaven address didn't face Fairhaven. He asked where their picture windows were to take in the view. The house that hosted the barbeque Sunday didn't have a single window to the west, which was the view. The house across the street had 12-15 foot oleanders all the way around it. He came to the conclusion that people talk about view, but they were really concerned about privacy. He chuckled to himself because now that the street is closed, the only time they see their view is when they back their cars out, but since the street has been closed they had to go the other way and could only see 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 i their view in the rear view mirror. He detected a little bit of hypocrisy here. He was concerned about one other thing. In the commission's presence the objection to the care facility was presented by a person who works at Eisenhower, was deeply concerned about toxic waste, hypodermic needles that could be scattered around the neighborhood, and he was still trying to understand that one. It seemed to him that if that person knew something about Eisenhower that the rest of the citizens didn't know, she had a moral responsibility to bring that up in the right venue. As a matter of fact, if she was sincere, she would do that. This wasn't the place to bring that up and he really wondered about that one. It seemed to him that the commission's responsibility was to give the answer that they gave to the people who were concerned about their homes on Portola. The street widening they were told was for the community good and in the long run it was for their good whether they realized it or not. It seemed to him that the commission's decision would be similar for this project. MR. JOE SCARNA, 72-840 San Juan Drive, said that as a homeowner in that neighborhood, he just invested quite a bit of money to remodel his home. He has a 4,000 square foot house there on San Juan Drive. To the Pastor that just spoke, the code word for property value is money. Nothing else. His concern was property value and had nothing to do with seniors, race or any others. Anyone who knew him knew he wasn't that type of individual. He felt the property value was going to be an issue and that was the first statement that came out of his mouth because it was one of protectionism. He put $250,000 into his property knowing the vacant property was R-7. The money was spent and now it was something else and it scared him. They had the barbeque and he was vehemently against this project. He made no bones in saying that. After meeting with the developers at the barbeque, they talked and he was against it on that day for those reasons. He wasn't against the senior citizens and thought it was a great project. He thought if he had a choice that would be the neighbor he would want next to him, not a bunch of homes. But he heard the word density and thought that meant a lot of people or a big building, either or and 250 units of senior citizens couldn't be a bunch of trouble. He wasn't concerned about that. In talking with these folks, he had a brainstorm and he threw it out to them and they were telling him that his property values wouldn't be impacted negatively. He asked how he was supposed to know that. Just because they told him that? That 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 tap didn't make sense to him. He would be very angry sitting there while his property was devaluating and they were making a whole lot of money. That would be very upsetting to him. So they talked about that and the developer saw his points so he just threw out the suggestion that they buy a couple of houses in the neighborhood. These houses were falling down and most didn't meet code just standing there, but there were third acre lots and a lot of people have shown interest in those properties and were starting to development them into $300,000 homes. That was neat and was a change over. He wanted to see that momentum keep going for selfish reasons. They were willing to do that. That to him meant they feel the same about their project that strongly that they were willing to do that, to invest some money. He thought it was imperative. That was a $50 million project and this was a couple hundred thousand per house. That was a lot to them and their neighborhood. That could be enough to jump start them and keep their neighborhood up on the rise and to keep up with the new homes being built in Rancho Mirage and that whole area. He thought the conditional uses that they put on the CUP they had tow given them were fair and reasonable. The applicant thought it was and it met all of their issues as neighbors. He didn't think they as neighbors should get involved in how they conduct their business. He saw a lot of that going on. They weren't in the care facility business. He was only interested in appearance, if it would be well-taken care of and he didn't want Halloween 13 going on in there. He wanted tall those folks in there being taken care of nicely and it fairly represented the city of Palm Desert. He said we are a very aggressive city and have a great reputation and he felt a facility like this one run right would enhance it. Run wrong, it could really damage them. As long as they maintain the decorum necessary and use the proper ethics that was required for business, he didn't see that problem. He was for the project now because it would help their neighborhoods because they were investing in it and they were allowing the neighbors an opportunity in their neighborhood. Regarding traffic, he said that traffic would be horrendous no matter where they were. He didn't know what they were going to do to avoid that. He thought we were spoiled. We have been living here so many years when there isn't anyone around. We have growth, more cars and that's just what was going to be a fact of life. How long they could fend that off he couldn't say. But Parkview was a great street to go down. They could zip though it pretty quickly i... right now and they wouldn't be able to in the future. Whether that 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 `t project goes in or not, they put 70 homes in that project. That was two and a half cars per house. He thought that was going to be more traffic than the senior citizen project. No matter what was developed there, it would be an issue for everyone. On vacating Fairhaven, he thought the city could help them and their neighborhood by vacating Fairhaven and creating cul-de-sacs there. That would be an important piece to help out their neighborhood and would create a nice buffer between the project and their neighborhood. He kind of heard in the background that the developer buying into their neighborhood was like blackmail. He said it was his idea and no one blackmailed anyone into anything. He put it out there and they accepted it and he thought it was a great idea. Property value was not a code word and he was really upset about that comment from the Pastor. It was representative of him and his neighborhood and he didn't know anyone who was a bigot. That was a genuine concern and it was about dollars. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant wanted to give rebuttal comments. Mr. Sweet said he didn't think there was anything to rebut. Mr. Drell asked if Mr. Sweet accepted all of the 28 conditions. Mr. Sweet said the 28 conditions they could live with. There were just a few small items that had to be tweaked. Chairperson Jonathan asked to see the 28 conditions. Mr. Moorhead said there were a couple of small items. It noted that the highest point on the project would be 25 feet and at the community center that one point in the project was either 27 or 28 feet, just that one piece. The setbacks might be wrong on that document, but it would be the setbacks as they presented. Mr. Drell asked what the setbacks were in the document. Mr. Moorhead said that in one case they were a little better than what was requested because they used from the curb instead of from the property line, so the setback off Fairhaven was 12 feet further than they've requested. mi 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Commissioner Beaty asked about the condition that required all delivery vehicles be natural gas or electric. Chairperson Jonathan clarified it would be onsite vehicles. Mr. Sweet said they weren't going to use smoky vehicles, smog producing vehicles, noisy vehicles. The type of vehicles at the time that are appropriate (i.e., today there were natural gas). Commissioner Beaty asked for clarification that they weren't talking about delivery vehicles, just vehicles used by the facility. Mr. Sweet concurred. Chairperson Jonathan said that provision 17 was about maximum height being limited to 25 feet. Mr. Sweet said that was one of those small details that would have to be tweaked. They could live with that, however, the community center was 28 feet and that one had to be 28, but the other could be 25. The community center was the building that was set back 300 feet from Parkview and 175 from Fairhaven. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Sweet if that was the extent of the controversy as far as he was concerned. Mr. Sweet said he didn't know. Ms. Rogers readdressed the commission and explained that Rancho Mirage had some concerns that they weren't able to get on that draft as of today because she just got it faxed to her. She didn't think it was anything that they couldn't work with (i.e., the roofs consistent with the neighborhood). Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification on what she meant by Rancho Mirage. Ms. Rogers said the Rancho Mirage contingency included the Ridgeview Estates, etc., which had been at every meeting. So the 28 conditions they submitted there were a draft. Those were things they came up 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 with as lay people and they would like to have some sort of open door policy to be able to add and work with the developer more. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Beaty said he would make a few comments and indicated he felt very qualified to comment on living near a senior center because he lived right across the street from The Carlotta. He was not apparently home when Mr. Sweet did his survey, but he had about three conditions that weren't as bad as the barking dogs that he has. At times the delivery trucks sat out there and idled and tried to get in and he thought the neighbors had addressed that one. He said it was irritating on those nights when the windows were open. It didn't matter when the air conditioner was running. At one time they had a PA entry system and sometimes people would be yelling at that at 6:00 a.m. and that was kind of offensive, but he didn't complain. They were there before he was and they had corrected that, although not at his request, but they reconfigured the entrance and that was no problem. They did have one spotlight that tipped and shined into his backyard and he made a phone call and they fixed it immediately. Their parking lot lights were a little high and he liked the condition they came up with to keep lights below the wall. He thought that was an excellent on and he would like to go back and ask The Carlotta to do that, but he couldn't. He said they were wonderful neighbors. They didn't cause any problems and they didn't cause any problems. There was never any noise from there other than from the delivery trucks. They never had any odors. His garbage pick up service was a whole lot more offensive and they violate the pick up hours routinely and that has bothered him because those trucks are noisy, everyone knew that. He said there weren't any traffic issues, but didn't know how many units were at The Carlotta and whether or not there was a skilled nursing facility. Commissioner Finerty said they did have skilled nursing and needed to add more beds. Commissioner Beaty said it just wasn't a problem. He thought there were some concerns that were unnecessary, truly. However, he couldn't condition the 28 things the commission just received and some of them might need to be,tweaked, but he couldn't act on that at this short notice. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Beaty. She thought the developer had done everything in his power to go ahead and help the neighbors and be in tune with them to see what there needs are and what they could do. She was very happy to have Mr. Sweet go to Hacienda de Monterey 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 %1W to check those neighbors because nobody really knew or most of the commission didn't know that they had a 99-bed facility in there when Mr. Sweet originally started with his. From the survey made of the neighbors, there was no problem whatsoever. As far as the two stories and three stories and 28 foot clubhouse facility, the pictures showed that they couldn't even tell there was a third story there. She was willing to recommend that this go to the council for their approval. They would look at all the conditions or staff would clean them up before they were given to council for their recommendation. Commissioner Lopez stated that he had to commend Mr. Sweet, Mr. Moorhead and the residents for working very hard on what he thought at first was a very difficult and controversial project. He thought they had all come a long way from the first meeting. The density issue as far as population had been addressed, the height issue was brought more in line and he felt comfortable with that, the commercialism had been addressed and the restaurant and gift shop were now going to be for the use of the residents and that was going to be incorporated in there. He thought that the 28 points the commission just received, there had been a statement by staff that we would try to incorporate them, but asked how that was going to be done. Mr. Drell said that as an exhibit they would incorporate that agreement as a condition of approval. Basically they were talking about issues like light problems, noise problems, odor problems which were the conceivable ongoing operational impacts of the project and they couldn't always foresee every activity and how it was going to impact those things. He said that for The Garden on El Paseo they inserted a condition because we weren't sure what all the impacts were going to be, and reserved the right to add more mitigations for those unforeseen problems regarding lighting, noise and odor. He said there was an odor problem which took a lot of work after the fact and it was solved. Creating an ongoing sort of a potential for review by the Planning Commission of those sort of issues to act as a kind of final arbitrator of these things that were unforeseen might be a way to deal with it. Commissioner Lopez said the only area that has popped up a couple of times, and he guessed he had personally been affected by it, was the speed on Parkview. He said he has gone down that road to take his son to a friend's house several times and he found himself maybe going a little too fast and one evening when it was dark out someone decided to run across the road in front of them and they were almost hit. The road wasn't lit well, so he was concerned about that and didn't know how that would be addressed in the 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 future, but the road was dark and at times people do travel down that road awfully fast. Other than that, he thought everyone had done a great job on making this work and he would vote for approval. Commissioner Finerty stated that she also appreciated the communication between the applicant, developer and the neighborhood. However, she was opposed to the project for the following reasons. As Mr. Sweet indicated, the project won't be viewable due to landscaping and there would be 318 subterranean parking spaces. That said to her that the project was simply too big for the parcel. She had addressed all along her concern for the mass of the building. A 1,350 foot long building was too big. As noted in the staff report as mentioned before, they needed to wait until the landscaping took hold to hide the building. Again, it was just too big. The comparison with Hacienda de Monterey was three stories versus two stories, so it was not really comparable. Other assisted living projects throughout Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage were in fact two stories. She still felt that there was a need to go back and reduce this project to two stories with fewer units and less mass. The recommendation would be that now that they have eliminated the skilled nursing on the Fred Waring parcel as far as the 99-bed facility was concerned, and use that parcel to spread the project on the now vacant Fred Waring parcel, then it might be something she could support. Essentially the commission was being asked to grant two height exceptions. One was 25 feet and the other 28 feet. Again, it was just too big for the area and she again asked the applicant and the developer to find something that would fit nicely into the neighborhood. She thought it had been made clear that no one is opposed to senior housing and she thought senior housing would be an asset. She would just like to see it fit into the neighborhood and thought the project before them now was simply too large. Chairperson Jonathan said he shares those concerns and initially he was opposed to the project for the same reasons the residents expressed tonight: the density, the height, some of the traffic and parking issues and so forth, but he had to say that in his mind the metamorphosis of what they saw initially compared to what they have now before them was persuasive. Deleting the street parking, having only 56 above ground parking spaces, the additional landscaping, the berming, deleting the skilled nursing facility entirely, lowering the grade by five feet, an overall height limitation of 25 and 28 feet, the setback for the three story portion, removing the tower elements, which he found objectionable, and reducing the number of units from 286 to 250. He felt this was comparing apples to oranges and in his opinion they had before 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 them now a project that makes sense, not just for the immediate neighborhood, but for the entire community and he also felt they had to be careful. They got used to having raw dirt and that's great, but raw dirt in this desert didn't last long, especially in this economic climate. He thought for not only this project but contrasted to what else could come in and the overall impact of this particular project to the neighborhood and to the community was far less invasive that some of the other possibilities for what could go on that raw dirt. Regarding the list of 28 items, he wasn't sure they could incorporate them as conditions, but as he looked through it, most of them already were in one shape or another, but he felt the 28 items could act as a framework for meeting the concerns of the residents because they defined very nicely the areas of concern both during development and then operationally when the project is up. They were part of the record and were an expression of the very legitimate concerns of the residents and he thought they could act as a framework for that. So for the reasons he enumerated, he thought the project was right for the neighborhood and right for the community and thought the impact was very reasonable. He asked for a motion. Mr. Drell asked how the commission wanted staff to deal with the 28 conditions. Chairperson Jonathan said his suggestion was that the 28 items would simply act as an informal framework for meeting the concerns of the residents. Mr. Drell asked why he didn't think they could at least somehow be incorporated and if there was a problem with putting them in some form of a condition so they have a somewhat of a binding nature. Chairperson Jonathan said that the problem with making them into formal conditions, and maybe there were other alternatives and he was open to that, but he shared Commissioner Beaty's concerns that they were just presented with them tonight and some of them were either not consistent with or were in actual conflict with the existing conditions: some of the setback references, some of the height references. Mr. Hargreaves said he hadn't seen them either, but this was going on to council and there was going to be a period there where they could iron out those inconsistencies, so what the Planning Commission could do if they were so disposed was to recommend approval with the conditions as presented by staff and with the substance of the conditions of the 28 subject to modifications between now and then. The applicant and residents would have an additional opportunity before the City Council to express any concerns they might have with the conditions as they eventually get presented. Mr. Drell said there would be another three weeks and as opposed to everyone coming back again, he thought that as long as the applicant was saying that there was nothing in the conditions that were a shop +� stopper as far as they were concerned, that again would give the 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 neighborhood some time to also refine them. Conceptually recommend that they also ultimately be incorporated into the conditions once the inconsistencies were ironed out. Mr. Smith asked if the conditions included the provision relating to investing in two homes in the neighborhood. Chairperson Jonathan said he didn't see that listed. Mr. Smith asked if that was commission's intention to impose such a condition, because he had some draft language if the commission wished. Chairperson Jonathan said that the applicant expressed his intent to do that but didn't know if he'd want to see it as a condition of approval because properties might not be for sale, or whatever. He asked how the other commissioners felt about that. Commissioner Beaty said he heard the expression of yes that was a good idea and makes a commitment and again he would like to see it incorporated. He asked Mr. Smith for the language. Mr. Smith stated, "To mitigate possible aesthetic concerns and property value impacts, the applicant has agreed to acquire two properties in the Palm Dell Estates area within (and he left blank the number of feet) feet of the project to remodel and upgrading. The first property to be acquired and remodeled prior to the applicant obtaining Certificate of Occupancy for the 100th unit in the project. The second property to be acquired and remodeled prior to the applicant obtaining Certificate of Occupancy for the 200th unit in the project." Mr. Hargreaves said they would need to have some operational parameters in there so that everyone understood what we meant by remodel and the scope of the remodeling. Those were details they could work out between now and the time it goes to City Council. Commissioner Beaty said he would like to see that incorporated pending details to be worked out. Mr. Moorhead said that if they incorporate such language into the agreement itself there was going to have to be some cause regarding reasonableness of the pricing there. There were a small number of units that come up for sale at anyone time and they currently had an offer on one property that they put on Monday. They were sincere about moving forward toward this, but at the same time it was a small neighborhood relatively and they made it clear when they were talking to individuals at the picnic that they weren't paying over market price for these properties to give someone a bonus. They would sincerely pay market price and move the values up because they believe in the neighborhood. If the requirement is really narrow and tight, it had a way of forcing a price on the property, so that wording needed to be incorporated if it was mandatory. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Smith knew how many homes they were talking about and of those homes how many were available for sale at this time. Mr. Smith said no. Chairperson Jonathan said he was concerned about having that kind of condition. Commissioner Beaty stated that if there was some way to document that a fair and reasonable market value offer was made and rejected, and those were easy to come up with because there were lots of people who do appraisals. Chairperson Jonathan said that would be okay, but Mr. Smith's language was that the applicant had to actually acquire and close prior to certain points. If they wanted to make it, a little more open ended to say that good faith offers/formal offers were made within the appraised value, as properties become available. Mr. Drell said that if he was somehow unable to perform, a showing of good cause back to the Planning Commission, and if suddenly no house was for sale, he could be compelled to buy something that was not for sale. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they could say something more broad, like the applicant shall make a good faith effort to acquire a minimum of two properties at their fair market values prior to the project's completion. Something along those lines. Mr. Smith deferred to the City Attorney. Mr. Hargreaves said that he was sure that between now and the time this goes before City Council that they could work out something. At this point they could incorporate the substance of that idea subject to refinement. Commissioner Beaty asked if this was on Thursday night's council agenda. Mr. Drell said no, it wouldn't go until December 9. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that would meet Commissioner Beaty's concerns. Commissioner Beaty said yes. Chairperson Jonathan said that with regard to the list of 28 items, the commission was saying to staff to incorporate them into the conditions of approval and ensure there are no conflicts with the existing conditions. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was a motion subject to those two changes. Mr. Hargreaves clarified that the changes would have the conditions as recommended by staff, plus the substance of the 28 conditions, plus the substance of the idea that the applicant would purchase and invest in two additional residences in that area. There was a question with respect to the Rancho Mirage additions. Chairperson Jonathan said they have dealt or chosen not to deal with that. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as 'presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1958, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). C. Case No. PP 99-17 - DONALD PECK, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an 8,000 square foot retail building on the north side of El Paseo, 250 feet west of Lupine Lane, 73-300 El Paseo. Mr. Smith noted that plans were on display. He stated that this property was the last remaining vacant piece of dirt in this section of El Paseo. It has a width of 100 feet and depth of 233 feet. It fronts on El Paseo and extends through into a common parking lot to the north. The parking lot situation he chose to describe as semi-organized. It was going to need some work. This applicant had chosen to connect to the parking lot situation to the west of the site. He aligned with and connected with it. With the area to the east there would not be connections. He couldn't do it both ways. He could either connect to the east or to the west and it made more sense to connect to the west. The 8,000 square foot building met code requirements for the height of the building, the parking, and setbacks. He noted that this building was higher than the buildings on either side of it. Buildings on either side of it rise taller further back on the building, so Architectural Commission for that reason and because of the colonnade section across the front of this building, they suggested and requested that Planning Commission require the building to be moved five feet further back from El Paseo which would put it in line with the adjacent buildings. There was room to accomplish that, in fact, there was a copy of the plan showing that but there were only two copies. That was the only change that would be affected on the project. Staff was suggesting that commission certify a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact which was included in the packet. There was also a draft resolution with conditions. Staff was recommending approval, subject to conditions. He said he had photographs of the adjacent buildings if anyone wished to see them. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty noted that the Hartman Jewelry building she was told was 12%2 feet at the front and 21 feet as it rises to the back. Mr. Smith said 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 that was approximately correct. Commissioner Finerty indicated that the building to the east, Invitations, was probably 19 feet. Mr. Smith said that on the main wing wall, yes, which from the picture looked like it was about three feet in back of the awning. Commissioner Finerty said that meant there was a height on the west of 21 feet and on the east 19 feet. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Finerty noted that the applicant was proposing 27 feet and 29 feet. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Finerty noted they were looking at an increase of 6 to 10 feet higher than the buildings on either side: 21 on the west versus the applicant's 27 and also part of the plan was 29 feet. The building to the east was 19 feet high, so that would be 10. The building being requested was 6 to 10 feet higher than the buildings on either side depending upon where you looked at them. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan said he looked at the comments from ARC and it looked like they had concerns with the height as well. He asked if they resolved that issue in their minds with the setback alone. Mr. Smith said yes, they did not ask for any changes to the architecture. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they discussed that as an option or if they just said if it was moved back five feet r... that would take care of the visual impact. Mr. Smith said yes, that was the discussion. If they moved it back they felt it would take care of the visual issue. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ALAN SANBORN, 68-726 Risueno in Cathedral City, stated that he was the architect and agent for the owner of the property. He said they basically concurred with staff on all the conditions and he was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Finerty asked if he was willing to lower the building height. Mr. Sanborn said there were probably a few feet they could probably lower it. Commissioner Finerty asked what his best guess was as to how much it could be lowered. Mr. Sanborn said probably three to four feet max. He explained that the owner of the property saw a similar building on El Paseo just completed 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 i down the street which was in an area where the buildings were a little bit higher. On the same side of the street was the Duxiana Bed Shop and a gallery. He liked the idea of having the flexibility of whoever he could get into the space of having the higher space inside, depending on what use they were going to use it for, so he gave Mr. Sanborn the direction to basically mirror the same volume as that building to start out with, so that was the direction they were headed in. Obviously the two buildings on either side of this building were different than that neighborhood and they could probably drop it three or four feet. Commissioner Finerty stated that according to her figures, the building to the west at the highest point was 21 feet and the building to the east 19 feet. Mr. Sanborn said it was kind of hard to judge it because it did slope back on the one side, but thought that sounded right. Commissioner Finerty asked how close he could come to those figures. Mr. Sanborn said if they dropped it four feet, it would probably be three or four feet higher. Probably four feet higher on the west side and three feet or less on the east side. Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that the numbers of 27 and 29 feet would be reduced to 23 feet and 25 feet. Mr. Sanborn said that was correct. 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. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell asked if with the reduction to the height of the building if there would be enough room for the signs like at Edith Morre, Gallery Blue and Duxiana to put right on the building. Mr. Smith said that in the case of those buildings, he thought they used awnings. There were no awnings shown on this building at this time. He thought there was still adequate space. He thought the applicant would take the height out of the building proportionately so the glass would become less also, so he thought there would still be adequate stucco area above the arches. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 tow Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification that the applicant wasn't seeking an exception to the height ordinance. Mr. Smith said that was correct and concurred that it was within the 30-foot height limitation. Commissioner Lopez asked if the commission wanted to incorporate the reduction in height as part of the conditions. Chairperson Jonathan said that personally, and he was generally very sensitive to the height limitation, but he kind of liked this for that area and thought it was a nice contrast and he liked the look of it. He thought that bringing it down would not necessarily be an improvement so it was within the ordinance and he didn't have a problem with it. If others did, he would abide by their decisions. Commissioner Beaty said he would defer to Architectural Review. They felt the setback mediated the height and that was acceptable to him, or forget the setback and accept the four-foot reduction. Chairperson Jonathan said he was much more concerned with the setback because he felt that did need to be consistent. He liked the setback and thought that was very important. Commissioner Lopez concurred. Commissioner Campbell said she liked the setback and the height and thought they needed to have a break on the street. They have a few buildings where some were higher and some lower, some had tower elements and she thought the building would be a lot more interesting. She was happy to see Mr. Smith have in the conditions of approval that they were going to go ahead and have the planters, water and electricity on them and she already checked out the wells for those palm trees. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approval as presented by staff. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Finerty stated for the record that she would be voting against the proposal. She felt that with the applicant willing to drop it four feet so that the project would be 2 to 6 feet high versus 6 to 10 feet higher was more aesthetically pleasing. Chairperson Jonathan called for the vote. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1959, approving PP 99-17, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). w 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 D. Case No. PP/CUP 99-20 - NIALL F. SAUNDERS, AIA, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit and height "exception" for a two story, 13,200 square foot professional office building and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto on the R-3 zoned property at the northeast corner of Alessandro and San Jacinto, 73-950 Alessandro Drive. Mr. Smith stated that plans were on display and included a landscape plan and rendered form of the building elevations and he passed along material samples. He said the commission also received in their packet correspondence staff received on Friday and with the original report the commission had the original letter from the neighbors. As noted, the request was for a two-story professional office building 13,200 square feet. The property in question was currently vacant and comprised some 35,700 square feet on the north side of Alessandro and east of San Jacinto. Property had a dimension of 236 feet by 140 feet. The property was currently zoned R-3. The R-3 zone permits professional offices "...provided the property to be developed is abutting or across the street or across an alley from commercially zoned property. Residential development standards to be used to insure compatibility." He stated that this property is across the street across Alessandro from C-1 zoned property, hence it is acceptable upon approval of a conditional use permit. The facility in question while it grosses at 13,200 square feet it would include a 3,800 square foot surgery center and 9,400 square feet of medical office. The applicant was also seeking approval of a height exception. As shown on the rendered elevations, the corners of the buildings had been projected up and they were at some 28 feet in height and the area over the entrance was eight feet above the rest of the building or an overall height of 33 feet. The plan A- 4 in the commission's packet showed this fairly accurately in elevation form and section form. The project as shown on the landscape plan would take access from Alessandro Drive. There was a two-way driveway which extends around the perimeter of the site and all access was taken from Alessandro. There was no access onto San Jacinto. It was currently blocked with barricades. Amongst the neighbors' requests was to move that barricade further south and in discussions with Public Works, they feel that can be accomplished and it didn't need to be a part of this project but it brought the issue up and they did discuss it with them. He pointed out where the building 3 was located, which was adjacent to Alessandro, fronting on Alessandro and was a considerable distance back from San Jacinto and it was a considerable U4 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 distance to the north. He indicated there was a single family dwelling to the north and to the east there was a recently remodeled office building on the corner at Portola and Alessandro. To the west there was a commercial parking lot on the corner that had access from San Jacinto and from Alessandro. To the west and north of the parking lot were single story single family homes. To the south across Alessandro there was the Metsovas Commercial Center which included SubKing and various other restaurant uses. There were offices and then at the corner at Portola there was an AM/PM ARCO. On the site plan he noted eight covered parking spaces on the east side of the property. He pointed out the carport location and access points. He said there was a total of 60 parking spaces were provided and staff outlined in the report a code requirement for 59 spaces. Regarding the height issue, the main building in this instance was 25 feet. With the projections they were looking at 28 and 33 feet. He indicated that the Architectural Review Commission looked at the building and granted preliminary approval including the roof elements. The action of the Planning Commission would be a recommendation to the City Council for or not for the height. The architecture was as proposed, so there was natural slate at the second story level in 12" by 12" sections. The rest tow of the building was stucco with small copper treatments on the canopy edges. As noted previously, ARC granted preliminary approval. As indicated in the staff report, the neighbors wrote staff back in October on this issue and asked that the city impose a series of conditions on the project. In talking with the applicant or the applicant's representative, Mr. Saunders, many of the conditions as outlined on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report were not objectionable and had been included in the draft resolution. There was disagreement in a few areas. The neighbors asked that the site be enclosed on the north and west by an eight foot high concrete block wall and that the parking lot access points be closed with solid gates when the business is closed. In talking with the applicant, they would prefer a six-foot block wall on the north property line, no wall on the west and no gates. Staff referred the matter to ARC to discuss the issues of the walls. ARC looked at that issue on November 9 and recommended that the north wall be a maximum six feet in height, the west wall be a maximum of four feet in height, and that a six- foot wall be required on the east property line. ARC also felt the gates were unnecessary and would not be compatible with the architecture. The principal goal of the design of the project was to achieve compatibility with the surrounding residential uses. The neighbors requested specific design features necessary to achieve the compatibility and staff was prepared to accede to the neighbors' request concerning the walls, however the proposed design on the �... west end did not provide enough or sufficient room for any wall if they are to 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 .nrl have any trees there and from staff perspective the trees would come before the walls. This concern was passed along to the applicant in telephone conversations on Friday. He was going to look into possible solutions to that concern because staff felt it was necessary to address the neighbors' concerns. He had not heard what the solutions might be. When they talked there was some suggestion that they might go with some fencing system where they didn't have a need for a large footing that was required under a masonry wall. Until this issue was resolved, staff could not recommend approval of the project. Other issues that were sort of left open condition wise were outlined on pages 6 and 7 and in item "B" the neighbors requested special construction hours at 7:00 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. for work on the second story. The reason for the hours were specified in the letter of October 15 from the neighbors. City code provided for a 7:00 a.m. start from October 1 through April 30. The applicant basically indicated a willingness to urge the construction people to abide by the neighbors' request, but felt they should just adhere to city code, that there shouldn't be special hours. Regarding hours of operation, staff had suggested limiting hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The applicant indicated that the surgery center might extend beyond these hours but the main building would comply, so they didn't have exact agreement on that. Lastly, the neighbors requested that the employee parking be restricted to the perimeter of the site. The applicant indicated that they could designate the spaces under the carport on the east side for employee parking. Basically in the draft resolution staff included the conditions which were consistent with the neighbors' requests except with respect to the eight foot wall and the gates. If they could come up with a solution for the west end of the property as to how they were going to screen that parking, then their recommendation is to grant approval subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked who the parking lot to the west was used by. Mr. Drell thought it might have been a parking lot that was constructed and required for the old Sunshine Meat and Fish Company that used to be on that corner that had no onsite parking. He thought the County required them to build some parking. It had never been used but at some point in time hoped that the progression of office buildings moved down the street and uses that parking lot. It was noted that the parking lot was all broken up, but was paved. Mr. Smith said it was his understanding that some of the employees from the Metsovas building. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that the 33-foot height was actually toward the east, the southeast, and it 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 top was really not in the center of the building. Mr. Smith said that it was in the center of the building, but it was on the south half so it was toward the Alessandro side. Mr. Drell said that the elevation on the residential side was 25 feet. He said there was also a question that the commissioners asked comparing the length of this building to the Dr. Shah building which was over 280 feet and the length of this building was 140 feet, so it was about half the length in terms of the visual impact of this structure. Commissioner Campbell indicated that all the fences that the neighbors have to the north were all different and asked if this builder would go ahead and build a six-foot wall along there. Mr. Smith said there would be a wall along the north side at a height to be determined. Mr. Drell said that the staff recommendation diverged somewhat in between the applicant's desire and the neighbors' desire. There was no physical obstacle to building an eight-foot wall along the back. Aesthetically staff felt as the wall approaches Alessandro it should step down. As it goes around the corner, it could staff eight feet screening that side of the lot from the house across the street, step down after three to six feet and by the time it got to the corner just be four feet high, or 36 inches which is what the parking code ultimately required. He said an alternative solution to the space problem, which was one they were discussing with the applicant originally, had to do with the Palma Village Plan vision that ultimately a lot of these streets which access Alessandro that as commercial development proceeded down Alessandro there would be greater occurrence of commercial traffic intruding into the residential area in that these streets would be closed off. San Jacinto was already closed off. When the applicant first came in, they discussed that instead of having a wood barricade, this was a good opportunity to develop a more aesthetic permanent closure or start along that line since that portion of the street didn't function any more and that one of the solutions to getting extra room might be starting that process and getting part of the street which was no longer of use, get some extra room to accommodate both wall and landscaping. Again, they would have to analyze how the street would end up and how much would be left. There was some design work that would have to be done. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification that the suggestion would be to look at a redesign of San Jacinto's intersection and come up with a solution as to trees versus a wall or a combination thereof. Mr. Drell said is they could use some of the existing right-of-way which was no longer necessary to get that extra room to allow both a wall and trees. Right now there wasn't room for a wall at any height. They would have to split it and there wouldn't be 'r enough room for any trees. They needed to get some room for trees 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 regardless of how high the wall would be. He suggested that maybe that could come out of a redesigned end street or a modified cul-de-sac which could be designed there at the end so they could have more of a final solution to the closure of San Jacinto which appears to still be a temporary one. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. NIALL SAUNDERS, the architect and owner's representative, said he would start the discussion on the wall. He said they wanted to try and accommodate the neighbors as best they could in all of their requests and there were some other issues. Along the back there was currently a six-foot high wood fence and they would propose to remove it and replace it with a nice new concrete block wall. Staff recommended six feet and they agreed and thought six feet was a good height for that wall. The neighbors had asked for eight feet and being an architect he was a little concerned about that because of the proximity of their house to the property line. He thought it might be too high. He thought they might not like it when it went up. There was such a thing as a wall being too high and creating a feeling of darkness and over enclosure. He thought that six feet was a good height. He said that if they also went higher than that, they were in for a much bigger structure for that wall and would have to put in bigger footings and it would impact the way they put trees along the back. They would like to have plenty of trees per the landscape plan and didn't want to spoil that either. As far as the San Jacinto frontage was concerned, initially they left that open, putting a lot of trees and planting in there to screen this residential neighborhood next door. With the situation described by Mr. Drell with the somewhat ambiguity in the future of that road closure, he thought it might not be a bad idea to not build anything too permanent along there too soon because it kind of closed off the options. In any case, they felt that initially they were providing good landscaping along there and they could certainly increase that if need be if privacy was an issue, but they didn't think that security was necessarily effected. He felt they were improving the security overall. However, they did come up with some ideas that they wanted to present to show how they might be able to put in a wall along there if the commission thought that was what they should do. He said they would be happy to do that, they just wanted to do what was best and most convenient. He explained that Alternate A was just to do good od 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 a.. landscaping at this point and leave options open for the street closure. Alternate B showed if they were to pursue the eight-foot fence option, basically he was proposing a wood fence which would not interfere with tree roots. It could be extended up to eight feet and need not necessarily to have an impact with extra footings. He thought that wasn't a great option and there would need to be more maintenance for the wood fence on both sides. Mr. Drell said there were cast concrete fence systems which and there was vinyl that could supposedly stand up to the heat. He said there were other things besides wood and other fencing systems that wouldn't require big footings and that might be a solution. Mr. Saunders thought the plus points on this might be that their neighbors might have a chance to see what it was like with an eight-foot fence fronting their property and the street and whether they liked it or not and it would be much easier to take down if they ever went with street closure improvements. Alternate C showed how they could build a block wall and in that case they would prefer to keep it to six feet along the back and per staff recommendation drop it down to four feet along San Jacinto. He showed the wall stepping in and out along the trees as best he could. He thought it would look good that way also to break up the long line. He said they were open to accepting whatever the majority felt would be the best solution regarding the walls. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification on Alternate C regarding the wall and landscaping. Mr. Saunders showed on a map the wall and proposed landscaping for both sides, which he said would be planted to the greatest extent possible. On the areas where the wall sets in, they had something like 3'4" between the block and sidewalk, could probably accommodate some reasonable landscaping in there. At the narrowest point it would be down to something like 2'8" and on the opposite side they had about 5'10" for the tree. He clarified that it was a continuous wall. Mr. Drell said the wall would jog in and out so sometimes there would be more room on the street side and less on the parking lot side and vice versa. Mr. Saunders said they had to leave enough space for the cars to overhang the front of the curb and likewise the tree. It was really aimed +.•• to get the maximum amount of space from the street side, although it 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 ti was not huge and might not conform to the current city planning guidelines for walls adjacent to street frontages, but that was the best they could get. Commissioner Lopez asked if trees would be incorporated along that wall. Mr. Saunders concurred and indicated the trees would be in the same location as shown on the site plan and those were also designed to give shading to the parking lot at the same time. They fulfilled several functions. Commissioner Finerty asked if he considered wrought iron. Mr. Saunders replied not really. Their neighbors expressed an interest in privacy and they were trying to give them that, although he felt the issue at heart was whether or not they would be able to see automobile grills from their houses. Unless something was grown along the wrought iron. Commissioner Finerty said that was going to be her next suggestion. She was thinking that the wrought iron might give him a little more flexibility and space with regard to the landscaping and there was a number of drought tolerant plants that would grow nicely along there that would also provide the privacy. Mr. Saunders said they could certainly look at that and would fall into the category that Mr. Drell was talking about with different types of fencing that might be closer to scheme B. Mr. Drell said that there were solid fencing systems that were more durable than wood. They were more expensive than wood, but they didn't require the contiguous footing. Also, it could be designed to step down as well. He thought that relative to the height on the back, if the main concern was how the neighbors would actually react to an eight-foot wall and if they really didn't understand the impact, the solution would be to start out building a six-foot wall and have the neighbors look at it. If they said it wasn't high enough they could go to seven feet and then up to eight if necessary. They could leave that decision up to the neighbors to decide if he or she is offended by the eight feet or not. The obligation would be to build eight feet, but could be lowered to six feet if the neighbors concurred. a 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 v Mr. Saunders said they would really prefer not to be doing that with block walls there. Mr. Drell said that the other issue was to break up the oppressiveness of an eight-foot block wall, they could use another different lighter material between the six and the eight feet that could also provide screening, but would not necessarily be as oppressive or trigger the footing change. Mr. Saunders addressed the hours of operation. He said they were quite happy to go along with the neighbors' suggestion. There was one issue that had been raised that a portion of this medical building would be used as an out patient surgery center. That was generally speaking elective surgery that people would go to have in a fairly small volume. One of the problems in trying to restrict hours on those kinds of situations was when people were being operated on, they didn't want to tell them they had to leave at 5:00 p.m. or likewise if they were recovering it might take a bit longer to recover. They didn't want to be turning them out at 5:00 p.m. That was the only caveat. He was sure �.. their neighbors understood that. The rest would be limited to patient hours and normal offices. These were specialty medical offices and not general practice so they expected to have a pretty quite low volume low-key operation going on. Commissioner Finerty asked if they were looking primarily to have cosmetic surgeries. Mr. Saunders said no, they were primarily looking at pain management. Commissioner Finerty indicated she had a couple of questions relative to the height exceptions. She asked staff to go out and find out what the relative heights were in the surrounding area. When they went to the west SubKing or Metsovas building was 24 feet high. The homes to the west and north are nine to 11 feet high. The AM/PM was 18-22 feet at the rooftop. To the east there were a couple of office buildings, the highest being 22-23 feet, but they had a larger setback. The proposed project as presented was at 25 feet on the residential side and going up to 33 feet on the Alessandro side. Depending on what they compared it to, it could be from three to 22 feet higher than what was in the surrounding community. That was of.concern to her, especially the 33-foot element. She felt it would clearly stick out because from what she `•• could tell, it went back to half the depth of the building which would be 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 approximately 33 feet and the width of this element would be one-fifth the length of the building or approximately 28 feet. She asked how amenable he was to reducing the height. Mr. Saunders said that the overall height of the building was 25 feet as stated and he felt that was appropriate for this kind of building. It would be hard to make it a two-story building with any less height than that and it pretty much conformed with the requirements for the office professional zone which was the alternate proposal by the staff. The elements at the front they increased in height as an architectural response more than anything to break up mass, give it interest and try to make it attractive. They increased a couple of elements at the corners for no other reason than aesthetic reasons. He thought the commission might think that was contrary to their point of view which was to lower things for aesthetic reasons, but there were cases where they would want to do the opposite to increase them. He knew that in Palm Desert there were provisions for allowing architectural elements to project beyond the normal building height to add interest and variety to the building scape. That was really what they were trying to do along Alessandro. If they looked at the building section they provided through the site, those building projections would not be visible from the neighboring house behind it. It would be really tough to see that, more so if they went to the extent of putting higher fences back there. He said it really wouldn't be possible to see them from the neighbor behind. Along Alessandro, he thought it added interest and would break up what could be a rather long hard line along there and there were some other office buildings that had stuck pretty ridgedly to the height requirements and it was pretty obvious what was going on there. They could see long, straight, unbroken rooftop lines. They thought that would be unpleasant and detrimental. His client was particularly interested in providing a good-looking building for the neighborhood and he thought they had achieved that by adopting the height increases. Commissioner Finerty said she didn't think there was any doubt that it was an attractive building. Her concern was the overall compatibility within the neighborhood and to her, based on the heights that were proposed, this building was clearly going to stick out. It would not fit in. 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 tow Mr. Saunders said it wasn't the same as a one story house, but he disagreed that it would not fit in from an architectural point of view. He thought there was more to fitting in than just height. Commissioner Campbell asked if on the second floor to the north there wouldn't be any windows. Mr. Saunders said that was correct. They designed the buildings with the access hallway at the back with high level windows so that wouldn't be the case. There was also a question about the rear exit stairway and whether or not that would overlook the neighbors. Initially it was suggested that they provide some kind of screening around that and they thought a good idea would be to plant trees around it. It would be a nice way to screen it completely. Mr. Drell said that unfortunately, they were relying on the success of the trees which sometimes happens and sometimes don't. Typically in terms of the privacy issue, the city liked to see a permanent screen which would guarantee i.. screening whether the trees grew well or not. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification that outside stairwells were prohibited in the Palma Village Plan when adjacent to residential. Mr. Drell said they could have stairwells, but the exterior of the stairwell should have a screen enclosure to prevent the view from the stairwell. In essence they were requiring that it be semi enclosed to the extent necessary to block the views. Mr. Saunders said that was okay with them. They were just trying to come up with a good solution. Mr. Drell said a tree was fine there too, but it had to have a physical screen. Mr. Saunders said they might do both. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the staff report indicated that the 3,800 square foot surgery center would function as a six-bed hospital. Mr. Saunders said it wasn't exactly a hospital. It was for out patient services. tow 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 j Chairperson Jonathan indicated that if it was out patient, some procedures might take an hour and some might take the greater part of the day and there might be recovery for some, there may not be. Mr. Saunders concurred and he stated that in no case would there be provisions for overnight stays or that kind of thing. Chairperson Jonathan said that at hospitals he had been to they fit six beds into a 100 square feet, not 3,800. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. ROBERT KING addressed the commission and stated that he and his wife reside at 44-841 San Jacinto. He pointed out that their swimming pool and outside patio area were located in their front yard which was directly across the street from this proposed two-story building. They felt that a four-foot wall, and they were proposing to use African Sumac trees which might grow or might not grow. They felt that would not provide the privacy and the noise barrier that they feel should exist. They also felt that the eight-foot wall would really be beneficial to their neighbor Mrs. Zakarian. They felt that at least a six- foot solid wall, and they would prefer a solid concrete block wall and it didn't have to be an 8x8x16 concrete block wall because it was a freestanding wall. It could be a 6x8x16 thereby requiring that the footing didn't have to be as large as a bearing wall. They would really like to have at least a six foot high concrete block wall that would run in front of their property along San Jacinto and they really didn't want the quiet residential neighborhood they have to be impacted by any of the business activities generated by this project. The other issue on the wall was if the square footage of the proposed building were pared down, that would allow the proper building to parking ratio and be believed that was the problem now. They didn't want to put a wall in because they wanted to keep the size of the building and then that didn't conform with the parking. If they were to pare it down enough, just a little bit, to allow this simple wall to go in across the front of their property, he believed that was a possibility that should be explored. As far as the eight-foot wall along the north property, the suggestion of starting with a six foot high wall and continuing up was an excellent idea and then they could visually see what was happening. It could be 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 `w done structurally. He thanked the commission for their time and all their hard work. MRS. NIESHA CLARY addressed the commission and stated that she and her husband reside at 44-855 San Jacinto. She said their house was directly across from this proposed building. Their front door, living room windows, bedroom windows and front yard looked directly into this lot where this proposed building was going to be put up. They had concerns at least with the wall height and they were glad to hear that they were trying to think up ideas to get a wall up, but they would like at least a six-foot wall there to provide them with more privacy, reduce noise and they felt that a full wall would be more beneficial than just landscaping. They did get a lot of foot traffic from the AM/PM and she didn't think landscaping would stop a lot of individuals from walking through that area and they would like to see it reduced. Their issue primarily right now was the size of the wall to continue to give them the privacy they have had thus far. She said that a sidewalk was mentioned for San Jacinto. She asked why the sidewalk would be %W there, especially if there was a possibility of having a full cul-de-sac. There would hardly be any foot traffic on that street to begin with and she wasn't sure why that sidewalk was going to be placed there. Mr. Greenwood said it was a typical condition to require sidewalks. If it didn't fit with the neighborhood, then they certainly wouldn't want to see it there. If they were to build a cul-de-sac, it wouldn't make much sense. However, if there was a cul-de-sac there, it would have to have fire department access, so they weren't talking about an absolute barrier. Pedestrians would probably still be able to make it through the cul-de-sac. Mr. Drell said that the elimination or reduction in the sidewalk would provide some of that extra room to allow for the block wall and landscaping, so that might be their solution right there. MS. PAULINE ZAKARIAN, 44-818 San Jacinto, stated that her property is on the north side. The reason she didn't like this project was because she felt there wasn't any buffer. There was a wall and she thought if the wall was higher, it wouldn't be as noisy because the clients or patients would be coming and parking for about an hour or so and moving out. She asked what kind of a buffer they would have. She thought he said it was about three feet so they could plant trees. She really thought it needed more than that. Another thing was they %W suggested a wall and graduating down steps. She said to forget that. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 She didn't like it because they did it in the back and it looked incomplete and was terrible. She would rather have a straight wall. She wasn't interested in what happened over there. She was interested in her job and they were interested in their job. She was told that it would be a seven-foot wall and now it was going to be six feet. She didn't like the wall because she felt it needed more of a buffer. The reason she wanted the construction hour times was because she has a Jacuzzi and if they were on the second floor, she wanted to know how in the world they were going to go in. That was the reason she had requested that time of 7:00-7:30 a.m. She said she was also told the building would be 28 feet high, not any 33 feet and now she heard 33. She thanked the commission. Mr. Saunders said he would like to clarify Ms. Zakarian's concerns because he felt she was a little confused about some of the issues here. As far as the northern property line was concerned, they were definitely proposed a straight across wall. No step downs in it. He thought she might be thinking of the San Jacinto frontage. Along the back they had a much wider, more generous landscape area where they could grow trees, so it wasn't really as constricted as she might imagine. He said the proposal hadn't really changed at all. The elevations at the front were the same as they were presented to her in the first place. The 33 element was just a small portion in the middle at the front of the building. It wasn't something he thought she would be bothered by, but he would be happy to walk her through the drawings and give her more information. They brought some with them. Commissioner Beaty said that Ms. Zakarian has a concern about someone from the second floor seeing into her backyard. Mr. Saunders said that during the construction phase they had no problem. He thought the times they set were the same as the construction ordinance. Mr. Drell clarified that she was requesting 30 more minutes. That it be 7:30 a.m. instead of 7:00 a.m. That they hold off on doing work on the second story for a half hour beyond the ordinance. i 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 r.. Mr. Saunders said they would be happy to write something into the contract. He didn't object to that condition and they would try and accommodate them where they could. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell said she would start with the building height. Again, the height was going to be 25 feet and her earlier question was what that element was and where it was facing and it was facing more toward Alessandro in the front. It also looked like all the windows were facing Alessandro. The projections were only on the corners at 28 feet in height. Again, with everything they were doing, with the six foot wall and all the landscaping they were putting in around there, with enough parking space, most of the building was placed toward the front on Alessandro so she didn't think the neighbors to the north would have any problem with noise, parking or lights. On San Jacinto, she thought they would take into consideration what the neighbors would like them to do and put in landscaping. As far as `ow the massiveness of the building, with Kinko's there on the frontage road and the AM/PM, this building would break the monotony of the existing structures. With all the elements they would be using it would be an excellent building and she was in favor of it. Besides that, Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval on the building. Commissioner Finerty stated that as she had expressed, her concerns about the height hadn't gone away. Basically just because a building met code, didn't mean that a building fit into the neighborhood. This particular project as proposed requested a height exception. She also felt it was over built for the lot. A scaled down version of this building would certainly enhance the neighborhood and she would be in favor of reducing the height. She noticed that Mr. Saunders mentioned the O.P. zone, which would limit the height to 25 feet and Mr. Saunders said that most of the building would be 25 feet, she still questioned whether that would be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, she would be opposed. Commissioner Lopez noted that there several conditions that were addressed as questions were brought up. Regarding the stairwell, one of the conditions was that it would be enclosed. Mr. Drell concurred that it had to be visually screened to the north. Commissioner Lopez said they would see the wall and �.. landscaping. He felt the building looked good and sat well on the property. 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 I He thought the homeowners on the north would probably enjoy having a nice new wall there and height would be an issue with them, but it sounded like the developer was willing to work with them on the height and what would be compatible for them. He liked the idea of the cul-de-sac and thought that was a good question on the need for the sidewalk. He said that was something that could have some flexibility he thought that would work fine. He thought it would work. He said the height was a concern, but there wasn't a lot around there and that the height in this case was from some nice features on the building. He would be in favor. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he was in agreement with something that Commissioner Finerty said and that was that they were over building for the particular property. He really liked the architecture and the look, the way it was broken up and thought it was very creative and attractive. If the lot were bigger they would have no problem. Where he did have a problem was with parking. The staff's calculation of the parking requirement coming out to 59 was founded on separating the project in two, as though this were two buildings and it wasn't. To him, this was clearly a medical use. They weren't looking at the bathrooms and saying that the bathrooms total 400 square feet and they were subject to the four per one or two per one. They couldn't be looking at the corridors and say that wasn't medical because people just walk there, so he felt they could say that this 3,800 square feet was arbitrarily a hospital. In fact, they heard the applicant say it wasn't a hospital. It was an integral part of the medical office use and they have a six space per 1,000 requirement there which was already being reduced to five per 1 ,000 because of a 15% reduction. If they went with an overall requirement of six per 1,000 reduced by 15%, the 3,800 square feet should 23 spaces instead of 11 and the overall requirement should be 71 as opposed to 59. He firmly believed they needed 12 more parking spaces on site, so if they added 12 spaces and added the necessary room, he didn't know why they were fiddling with the wall. It needed six feet, it needed trees and that meant make it happen. The additional parking requirement, the requirement for the wall, the requirement for the landscaping, all those requirements that were normally placed on every project that comes before them told him that they were trying to put too much building on this space. If the building were smaller, they wouldn't have any of these problems. He liked the architecture and personally didn't have a problem with the height, although he almost did but could live with it, but he did have a problem with the parking, wall and landscaping. It all came together to tell him they were trying to fit too much building on too small of 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 a.. a space. He would not be prepared to be in favor of the project for those reasons. He said he would entertain a motion. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would move to deny the project as presented. She wasn't hearing from the applicant that they have any room with regard to the size and or height of the building to scale it down to make it fit the lot more appropriately. Chairperson Jonathan said he was always wary of denials because it meant going back to square one or appealing to the council and that might be where they ended up or there might be a separate motion for approval and that might pass. He didn't know where they stood. But another option was to continue the matter and give the applicant a chance to address the concerns if he wished to do that. Commissioner Finerty asked if they should ask the applicant. Chairperson Jonathan said he wanted to be careful because he didn't know how this vote was going to go and it could be that as presented it would pass. So there might not be a need for continuance and they could just vote on the motion. The problem was that if they voted on denial and it passed, then they were stuck with that, so he asked the applicant if he had any preferences at this point before they move onto motions and votes. Commissioner Beaty said to be fair to the applicant he would offer his comments. He said he liked the appearance of the building and didn't have a feel for the height issue, but he was concerned that there were too many concerns from the commission and he would be in favor of denial as presented, but very much in favor of some sort of a scaled version. Mr. Saunders said that as far as the parking was concerned, they actually have 61 spaces on the site. Chairperson Jonathan said they would be required to have 71 and he didn't want to debate that. They were past that. He wanted to hear from him as to whether he would prefer to have a vote and perhaps be denied, which meant he would have the opportunity to appeal and go on to the City Council. The project wouldn't die at this point. Or if they wanted to go back to the drawing board and see if economically and aesthetically a smaller project would pencil out for them, then the commission could continue the matter. He thought those were the two choices here tonight. Mr. Saunders asked to confer with his client. Chairperson Jonathan reopened the public hearing to allow Dr. Rosenbloom to address the commission. 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 +mot DR. ROSENBLOOM addressed the commission. He stated that he was the one in charge of this project. He said he didn't know if the commission had really looked at the plans, but the building consisted of the surgery center and five offices. One office was 800+ square feet, one office was 1 ,100 square feet, and three other offices were about 1 ,500 square feet. He knew they needed to follow the rules, but as it stood right now for the building, the parking was grossly excessive. Number one, he would be in the surgery center the whole time, yet one of the five offices was his, which would not be used. The majority of the offices would be satellite offices. One office that had already been leased would only be occupied at the most three afternoons a week. That would be by three different physicians once a week. So in the whole scheme of things it seemed that they figured appropriate in terms of the parking spaces and did according to their mathematics. Even the way it stands right now, a building with a surgery center that only has two operating rooms and a building that only has five offices, the parking was very excessive. Again, he knew they had rules and formulas. Commissioner Beat asked Dr. Rosenbloom to address the height and Y 9 massiveness. He asked if he needed that many square feet and 33 feet in height. Dr. Rosenbloom said that personally, yes, he thought so. They were trying to upgrade and trying to make this area nice. He was across the street from Kinko's, La Taqueria, and he was trying to put in something nice to improve the area. If this building was in the middle of Alessandro several blocks down that would be of significance, but it was right at the corner of Portola. It was open and he didn't see any problem with it. Again, he wasn't here making rules. If he thought there was a problem with it, they wouldn't be here. Personally if there was going to be any objection about anything like the neighbors, he wouldn't have purchased the property. They all wanted everything to get better and they lived in this area and wanted it improved, but before he bought the piece of property, he spent a lot of time at the city and talked to them and he showed them plans. He pointed out what was surrounding him and what was across the street and then he was building a building of this quality and this character across all the delivery doors from Kinko's and the like. He was just saying that he didn't think that things like this would be an issue. Again, he would Willi 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 follow the rules and if the commission was telling him the rules were such, then he abides by them. But he would tell them for certainty that the parking was grossly in excess right now but if it was the rules that was fine, and they had done that. If they even asked for more parking, it was going to be vacant. He would just be supplying parking to all his neighbors around. If they wanted the wall for privacy that was fine. He heard a lot of comments like noise. He didn't think there would be noise emanating from this building. This was a specialty building. Would it be plastic surgery? No, it wouldn't. If there was plastic surgery done there, it would probably amount to two or three percent. The majority would be same day surgery that centered around orthopedics and pain management. He was a pain management specialist and anesthesiologist. Chairperson Jonathan said they only wanted to open the public hearing to specifically address the issue of whether there was a preference for continuance or if the applicant wanted the commission to proceed with the vote. He said that he knew Dr. Rosenbloom was sincere about what the intended use was and about the parking requirement. But he had to understand that in the commission's position, they heard that a lot and different things occur for legitimate reasons. For example, he might build this and someone might come along and buy it from him. What goes in for the use could be very different. Now they were stuck because it was approved for a medical use. This city recently changed its ordinance from four spaces per 1,000 for medical to six spaces per 1 ,000 for the very reason that they have experienced severe parking shortages in medical use facilities. While he believed Dr. Rosenbloom's intentions were good and perhaps during the time he operated the facility, parking might be adequate, but they would be stuck with it after he was gone so there were valid reasons. It wasn't because there were arbitrary rules out there. Having said all of that, rather than engaging in a debate, he asked if the applicant had a preference for a continuance at this point or if he would rather the commission proceed with their discussion and vote. Mr. Saunders said they worked on this building from the start with the Planning Department staff to arrive at this size and figures, so he thought they were appropriate for this site so he wanted the commission to take their vote and proceed. 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan reclosed the public hearing and asked for further comments or discussion. He stated that there was a motion and second for denial and asked for a vote. Mr. Drell requested that the findings be summarized for the resolution. Commissioner Finerty said the findings would be that the proposed building was over built for the lot, it was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, the height exception was not justified, especially with regard to the 33-foot element because it goes back half the depth of the building and it was one fifth the length the building. Chairperson Jonathan said it would also impact the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Finerty said especially the home that were only nine to 11 feet high. Chairperson Jonathan added that the exception to the parking ordinance was not justified. Mr. Drell said it was the interpretation, there was not exception. There was a specific provision in the code. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that Mr. Drell might agree or disagree, but to him the parking ordinance was clear at six spaces per 1,000 and that was not what was being provided. He felt the parking was inadequate and an exception was not warranted. Commissioner Finerty said to sum it up, the project on average was any where from three to 22 feet higher than what was in the surrounding neighborhood. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that provided enough justification for staff to prepare the resolution of denial. Staff concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Campbell and Lopez voted no). Chairperson Jonathan apologized to the applicant for the matter not going his way, but he thought that they heard some very good, positive comments about the project and he hoped there would be a way to make it happen. He wished them luck and thanked them for being at the meeting. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. REPORT ON REQUIREMENT FOR ILLUMINATED STREET NUMBERS Mr. Smith indicated that staff took Commissioner Campbell's comments at the last meeting to heart and took a look at the issue of illuminated street numbers a and talked with both the Fire Department and Building Department. The Fire Department had been requesting that condition for more than five years. They 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 have been getting illuminated numbers, but not 100% of the time. In talking with both agencies, the Building Department didn't have any code requirement for it nor the Fire Department. It wasn't codified, but it was something they asked for in their conditions. That was the report. Commissioner Campbell asked if it could be made into an ordinance of some kind. Commissioner Finerty asked what the point was of having a condition if there wasn't an ordinance. Mr. Drell said they applied a lot of conditions to projects that weren't ordinances, although it would be appropriate in that they have this ordinance in the Building & Safety code that deals with street addresses and if the Fire Marshal believes that if they can't be read at night, then they are useless, then maybe they should suggest that it be amended to provide for illumination of addresses. Commissioner Finerty asked if that was something this body would do or if it would need to go to ZORC, or how they should proceed. Mr. Drell explained that it wasn't part of the Zoning Ordinance. It would be a recommendation to the council that the appropriate building code section be amended to include the illumination of addresses. Commissioner Campbell noted that although it was now a condition, if the developer didn't do it, they couldn't get it done. Mr. Drell said that technically most of the conditions that were part of the Fire Code were really informational. The Fire Department could enforce the Fire Code whether we conditioned it or not. But anything that was in our resolution was enforceable unless appealed by the applicant when it's approved. The fact that it's in there and is adopted by the Planning Commission and not appealed by the applicant, it was an enforceable condition. Mr. Drell explained that it was a condition of the resolution that incorporated the recommendations of the Fire Marshal. As a matter of consistency, if this was something they felt as a matter of course should be consistent throughout the city, then we do have an ordinance which mandates addresses and the Fire Marshal thinks it's a good idea that they all be lit, then it should be clear. They shouldn't have to wait until they get their resolution to find out what the conditions are, this was something that would say right off the bat that there would be lit addresses. He would suggest that the commission recommend to the city council to direct the Department of Building & Safety to prepare an amendment to the appropriate ordinance requiring illumination of street addresses. Chairperson Jonathan asked if this was for residential as well as commercial. Commissioner Campbell said they were talking more about residential. Mr. Drell said that typically commercial areas are lit. He said they could discuss this with the Fire Marshal and ask him what they really want here. Commissioner Campbell said they were already working with the Fire Marshal 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 on the commercial as far as building numbers and height of them. Mr. Drell didn't think there was as much of a problem with commercial because there was street lighting on commercial streets which allowed them to be read. The problem with residential streets was that they were often dark and were hard to read. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the illumination was not necessarily self contained lit numbering, they were saying it could be a spotlight or wall light. Commissioner Campbell said it could even be on a mail box. Mr. Drell concluded that it should be somehow designed to be visible. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that this was a recommendation to council. Mr. Drell said yes, because this wasn't an ordinance that would typically come to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Finerty asked if they wanted it to go via the Fire Marshal so that he could prepare a report as to why it was he felt that illumination was necessary. She assumed it was a timesaving measure. She wondered if the commission needed to outline the specific reasons they felt amending the code was important and it would be based on what the Fire Marshal had to say. Mr. Drell concurred and said the recommendation would be, in conjunction with the Fire Marshal's input, to propose an amendment to require illumination of addresses. Action: Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend to City Council that the Department of Building & Safety be asked to prepare a code amendment requiring illuminated street addresses. B. DISCUSSION OF TRAFFIC STUDY AND LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR CASE NO. PP 99-18 - DESERT SPORTS GROUP Mr. Winklepleck noted that at the last meeting one of the directions of the commission to staff was to bring back the traffic study and landscape plan when they were ready. He said the applicant wasn't sure he was going to have time to have the landscape plan prepared and to the Architectural Review Commission in time, but they did. ARC did approve the conceptual landscape plan with some minor revisions. He said that the concept plan showed quite a bit of turf area along Monterey and at the entry areas. The applicant was directed to remove the turf and replace it with more desert compatible material; something along the lines of decomposed granite. There was also discussion on the parking lot trees. The City was still trying to find the perfect parking lot tree. ARC also directed the applicant to work with staff to find the best mix they could for that area. Mr. Winklepleck indicated that 3-D aw 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 r.. renderings were included and would be before the City Council on Thursday. He felt the renderings added a depth that perhaps the elevations didn't have. As far as the traffic study, copies were distributed yesterday. He apologized for getting them out so late. He said that quite a few members of the applicant's team were present to answer any questions and Mr. Greenwood could answer questions on the traffic study. Commissioner Beaty stated that he would like to hear from Mr. Greenwood and asked if he had a chance to review the study and had any comments. Mr. Greenwood informed commission that staff received the final portions of the traffic study yesterday. He thought it was a thorough and accurate study. He indicated that the engineer found that the project would generate approximately 14,500 trips per day, with the majority of access on Monterey. That would add 14,000 trips per day onto Monterey. That was for the entire 70 acres built out. The study addressed the entire site, not just phase by phase. Some of the mitigation measures that would be required for that were for the first phase, the year 2000, and all the improvements would be within the project frontage on Monterey. Improvements included additional turn `, lanes, additional through lanes on Monterey, signalizing the north project driveway, and that was pretty much the extent of the improvements for the first phase. For the cumulative or the build out time period for this project, the impacts stretched from Gerald Ford to Dinah Shore. He explained that each intersection needed a certain amount of mitigation. What the engineer found here was that there are impacts from this project, but they can be mitigated. The mitigation measures were identified in the Executive Summary and they were essentially adding additional lanes at pretty much every intersection along there. The difficult point here was these were mitigation measures identified but were unfunded by any particular project. For the most part they were included in the General Plan and would happen as development occurs and as the city takes on capital improvement projects there could be a specific turn lane or two which they would have to keep an eye on that wasn't currently identified in the plan. Essentially what this report said was that there were certain impacts from this project and they could be mitigated and those measures were identified here. The city's major concern was that they felt Monterey Avenue was the city's lifeline to the freeway. It goes from the city's commercial core to the freeway and it was a very important street for us so they didn't want to do anything to hinder flow and cause excessive delays in getting to and from the freeway. So they had a second phase of the study where they didn't just analyze each intersection independently but also analyzed the amount of time it would take to travel from Gerald Ford to Dinah 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 �■rri Shore with this additional signal in place. Essentially what it showed was that for the first phase of the project there was no impact at all to travel time over that one mile section. At build out they would expect about a ten-second increase in the travel time. Now it takes about 75 seconds and they could expect it to take about 85 seconds in the future. It wasn't an unexpected or unreasonable additional delay for this kind of development. It would be worse without the mitigation measures that were already proposed. One last issue was that Monterey was an important corridor to the city and they wanted to coordinate with the City of Rancho Mirage to make sure that the signalized location proposed with this project lines up with any access they are proposing. He received a fax today from the Rancho Mirage Public Works Director and they showed a signal at the same location as this project's signalized intersection. Rancho Mirage's side of the street would be named Ginger Rogers Lane. They didn't any additional signalized access points between Gerald Ford and Dinah Shore other than this one, so he felt this study represented future conditions well without any other signals anticipated in there. Overall it showed that the project wouldn't cause any undue impact to traffic in the future. Chairperson Jonathan noted that item five on Mr. Winklepleck's memo indicated a triple left for eastbound Dinah Shore. He asked if there was such a thing. Mr. Greenwood said they exist in, Las Vegas and some of L.A. County. He doubted that was what would actually happen here. This was the engineer trying to cast an eye to some point in the future, probably at least ten years out, and it was hard to say. That was the quick answer they came to, to get the level of service to a reasonable level. There might be another way to add a more appropriate lane somewhere else that would do the same thing and that seemed like a strange place to end up with a triple left to him and it was probably an additional through lane in an opposing direction. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that on a double left, the person next to him always seemed to have trouble staying in their lane. Commissioner Beaty asked how payment for signalization would occur for a shared intersection. Mr. Greenwood explained that in this case the developer would pay for the complete installation of the signal. When Rancho Mirage's development occurs their developer would pay for all the modification. Commissioner Beaty asked for confirmation that they would not pay for part of the original installation. Mr. Greenwood concurred that they would not pay '. for the original installation, unless the developers got together and agreed to share costs up front and design it to the ultimate. In his discussions with city 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 staff at Rancho Mirage today, they indicated their developer would like to participate and do it once, rather than with a series of modifications, which Palm Desert staff would also prefer. Mr. Drell said there was a signalization fee based upon the total square footage of the project. Mr. Greenwood said that in addition to building the signal at the project frontage, they were also paying fees for impacts to other signals. Mr. Drell said they were also paying TUMF, which was the generalized impact to the road system of $1 .2 million for the total buildout of the project, which was about $1 .50 a foot. Commissioner Finerty thanked the applicant for supplying her with a video on Gameworks. She said that it was very informative. That, along with a lot of literature that gave her a lot of information, told her that it sounded like a great project, however, she was still concerned with the rock climbing feature which necessitated some of the height and mass of the building. Also, with the pictures that the commission saw and the elevations, which were in color, she was a little disenchanted with the preformed metal panels. She didn't feel they were especially attractive and really stuck out on a building of this size. The building size really came into view when she saw the semi truck parked back into it and that showed how much larger the building was than the semi, which was generally considered fairly large. Her concerns still rested with the height and she asked the applicant what they could do about that. Mr. Winklepleck informed Commissioner Finerty that he was still looking into the other item she asked about regarding other Gameworks facilities. He talked to Mr. McClendon with the applicant's team. Mr. McClendon indicated that for the climbing wall and Gameworks in Las Vegas, the structure was approximately 20 feet above grade with the climbing wall another 16 to 20 feet below grade. There was engineering and other considerations to consider and it would also cost a lot of money to do that. The Gameworks at The Block and Ontario Mills did not have climbing walls. Commissioner Finerty thanked Mr. Winklepleck for the information. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification on the round feature on the plans. He asked if it was the ceiling for the climbing wall. Mr. Winklepleck concurred that it was part of the clerestory. Mr. Drell said it did have an elevated portion which was the round feature which was where the climbing wall would be. It was about ten feet above the rest of the building. He was sure the architect would say that provides a break in what would then be a very lineal roof line created by the two sports areas. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that they already approved the project and they just wanted to review the landscaping 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 and traffic and pass along their comments to Council. He said it was hard for him to tell if the landscaping would really soften the impact. The commission had looked at a lot of pictures and then when projects went up, sometimes they were better than the commission expected and sometimes they were worse than they expect. His comment to Council would be that he thought the landscaping was an integral and important feature of this project. He hoped that Council would review it carefully. Not just the way it impacts the building, but the way it impacts the view from Monterey. He thought that Monterey was an important gateway and this project would be a tremendous impact on that gateway. He hoped the landscaping was done right. He continued to have concerns about the architectural aesthetics. He liked it but felt there was still a kind of gymnasium feeling to it. He said it would be a real nice high school gymnasium, but it had that kind of feel to it. He noted that this was big a structure and he had used The Pond as an example, but there were other structures that were nice facilities that come off looking much nicer. He was sure it was more expensive, so he also understood those considerations. His word to pass along to Council was that if there was a way to spruce this up a little bit, and the project was nice and he wasn't putting it down, but if there was a way to make it a little nicer, that would be terrific. Mr. Winklepleck said he wanted to make a comment about the landscaping. The applicant was also concerned with the impact of the building and on the plans where they typically saw 15 gallon or 24 inch box trees, he believed in all the frontage and access areas to the project they would all be 36 inch box. He said they bumped up the sizes of just about all the plant material to try to get that instant impact. The problem was if they went over 36 inch, and actually over 24 inch, the cost goes up quite a bit and also with the trees there was a much higher percentage of root bound trees that really could end up falling down, so there were other considerations. But the applicant was also concerned about it. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was going to invite Mr. Winklepleck to come to the parking lot at President's Plaza East where Mr. Jerry Clark planted four rosewood trees there. She said that the trees were beautiful and they stayed green all year long, grew double compared to other trees planted, and give beautiful shade. She said they didn't suffer in the summer and had beautiful shiny green leaves. She thought that was what was needed in parking lots and all the trees in the parking lot needed to be replaced with the rosewood trees. Mr. Drell said they were almost an after thought to try them. He noted that those trees have only been there one year. He said they were planted as a 24 inch, but they look bigger than a 36 or 48-inch size right now. 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. JOHN NETTLES, one of the partners in Desert Sports Group and Vice President of Landmark Sports Entertainment, introduced the rest of the team members present: David Turner from Coachella Valley Engineers; Sake Reinsdersma, Vice President of Mulvanney Architects out of the Portland, Oregon, office; Ray Lopez, their landscape architect who worked on Desert Willow; and John Brett, their site manager. Mr. Nettles said he looked forward to going before the Art Commission tomorrow at 8:45 a.m. He said he was going to do a five-minute overview of the project and make some comments. He also said he would be sitting down with the rest of the partners and a gentleman named Will Nettleship, who he understood was being used as a consultant to do the public art piece off the intersection of Monterey and 1-10. Then they would go before the City Council and hopefully they would work out the height consideration that evening. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Nettles would be discussing that tomorrow morning at the Art in Public Places meeting. Mr. Nettles said that if need be, he would be prepared to discuss that. Commissioner Beaty said he really appreciated the professionalism of the people this group was bringing. He felt this would be a world class facility and he looked forward to it. Chairperson Jonathan seconded that. He felt there had been a real feeling of partnering on this project and he thought they had been very cooperative and genuinely so. He said that came through and the commission appreciated it. He definitely wanted to see this project come together and go up. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) �► C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (November 15, 1999) Commissioner Finerty indicated that about the only thing of interest to the commission was that there would be a traffic signal going in at Hovley Lane East and Casbah, which was approximately where Oasis was. Commissioner Beaty asked if that would help out with the double stop sign situation. Commissioner Finerty didn't think it was going to affect that. E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Jonathan asked about the meeting of December 21, 199 9, a holiday week. He asked if they could plan ahead for that and asked if some of the commission members would not be present. Commissioner Beaty said he probably would not be here. After discussion, it was determined that there wouldn't be a quorum and the meeting would be canceled. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:21 p.m. s PHILIP DRELL, tecretary ATTEST: SABBY JONATH IN, hairperson Palm Desert Plann ng Commission /tm 56