Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0905 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER law 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan tow Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Dave Erwin, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Jeff Winklepleck, Parks and Recreation Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the August 15, 2000 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the August 15, 2000 minutes. Motion carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Jonathan and Lopez abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION iu... Mr. Drell summarized pertinent August 24, 2000 council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 00-21 - ONE EL PASEO, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust lot lines for Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 26994 to accommodate proposed commercial building at 74-199 Highway 1 1 1 and 74- 155 Highway 1 1 1 . Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 00-07 - FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow expansion of First Baptist Church of Palm Desert (specifically expansion of the parking lot and creation of an outdoor recreation area) on a vacant lot fronting on Robin Road immediately east of the existing church facility at 43-400 Warner Trail. Mr. Smith noted that commission received late arriving mail, pro and con, on this request. The plan on display denoted the area of the proposed expansion of the conditional use permit. The church was requesting approval to expand onto the vacant lot immediately adjacent to its east. That parcel was currently t 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 r.. vacant. They proposed to expand the parking lot to create an outdoor recreation area, upgrade the existing parking area to current landscape standards, and install perimeter block walls where they currently don't exist. No building expansion was being requested. In the staff report, Mr. Smith outlined the pros and cons with respect to this request. They would increase the available parking from 71 to 131 spaces. This should take some of the traffic off of local streets which parked there during church services. The Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval. The entire parking lot would be brought up to current city standards with respect to screening and landscaping. Expansion of the recreational facilities for the church would allow them to better serve the use and keep them active and off the streets. Cons. The plan as proposed would create another driveway access which would exit onto Robin Road which is a local street, residential in nature. Secondly, it would be putting a large parking lot immediately adjacent to an existing single family home. Thirdly, through the increase in parking availability they would be increasing the intensity of the use of the church facility. There was correspondence submitted both in favor and opposition to the request. The folks on the west side of Warner Trail generally tow supported the application because it would allow people to park on the church lot and get them off of Warner Trail. The people on Robin Road and specifically the property owner to the east didn't want the church moving this close to them. Staff's position was to continue the matter to allow the parties to try and get together to see if there wasn't some room for a mitigated settlement through higher walls, restricted hours, or whatever it might take to bring the parties together. That was the recommendation, but it was a noticed public hearing and the commission should open the public hearing and take testimony. Commissioner Lopez asked who owned the vacant lot. Mr. Smith said the church. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant was willing to meet with the neighbors to discuss mitigation measures, if city staff would be open to chairing that kind of a meeting process. Mr. Smith said yes. Commissioner Campbell asked if, since the church owned that lot, if they had that in mind originally to expand and if the homeowners directly to the east knew that something would go in there regarding the church. Mr. Smith said that would be better asked of the church representative. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. WARREN STALLARD, 78-683 Como Court in La Quinta, informed commission that he was the secretary for 1 st Baptist Church of Palm Desert and that he would try to answer any questions. Commissioner Campbell said that in regard to the vacant piece of property belonging to the church, since the church has been there quite a few years, she wanted to know if the house to the east was aware that the church owned that piece of property before they built. Mr. Stallard said he would have to check to be sure, but thought that the church purchased that lot subsequent to the construction of that house. He said he was quite certain that the house was there before they purchased the lot. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Stallard was aware of some of the concerns of the neighbors. Mr. Stallard said he was. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Stallard thought there was a possibility that some of those concerns could be mitigated through perhaps some of the methodologies that Mr. Smith referred such as walls, creating distance, creating landscaping barriers, and things of that nature or other possibilities. He asked if Mr. Stallard thought that was a possibility. Mr. Stallard said it might be. The matter had been discussed with the neighbors. He said that he personally didn't discuss the proposal with the neighbors, but the pastor did, and his understanding was that they were really opposed to anything except a single family dwelling on that lot. He thought they were pretty strong on that position. Commissioner Jonathan asked if he had a sense that any mitigation measures put in place wouldn't really be effective because his sense was the only thing that would be acceptable would be a residential development of that lot. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 tow Mr. Stallard said as he understood it, the church offered to put up higher perimeter walls and whatever might mitigate their concerns. But he really thought, and perhaps the church should talk to them again, but his understanding was that they want nothing but a single family home on that lot. Commissioner Lopez asked if Mr. Stallard could give the commission a feeling of the growth of the church as it has occurred over the past several years and his vision of where the church might be going as far as size in the future. Mr. Stallard said they were no doubt limited in size based upon the size of the auditorium. They couldn't build a larger auditorium. He would say they would max out at 300 persons at that location regardless of the parking. They were very limited in that regard. They would like to grow, but the growth had not been phenomenal. A lot of people came and some moved away and it hadn't had a net gain of a whole lot. He explained that two churches merged. There was a Desert Baptist and a 1 st Baptist and those two churches merged and at that time there was a significant increase in attendance because of the merger. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. JOYCE FRISCO, 77-575 Robin Road, the property owner adjacent to the lot in question, informed commission that when she found out there was a possibility of a request for a postponement or any kind of mitigation, Mr. Stallard spoke correctly that the homeowners wanted to see the lot remain as a residential lot with a home on it. They understood the position and weren't trying to be uncaring or unconcerned for the people on Warner Trail. They understood that they were concerned because Warner Trail was a problem because of traffic, the parking, and the amount of cars going down that street. That was irregardless of what happened with the church. For the church to be a growing church, they needed room to expand. She indicated that commission was given a letter signed by six of the eight actual homes on the street. Not all of them were built out at this time. They all wanted to see it remain as a single family home on that lot. She informed commission that she served on the Project Area 4 Commission when they worked on the specific plan. She said they had one acre 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 parcels unique to the city of Palm Desert. They were so unique and they knew the zoning was improper at the time, so they went through a lengthy process of coming up with a new zoning for the area because it was so unique. This lot faces Robin Road. It was the entrance to Robin Road where there are one acre homes and homes being built on this street. To change the whole entrance to the street by having a parking lot and playground would defeat what they all set out to do originally with the specific plan and zoning change. She did have some possible solutions for the church, but didn't think they included the Robin Road residents and changing the zoning or giving them a conditional use permit. If they had parking problems on Sunday morning, she suggested that maybe they needed to consider two services so they could alleviate that. A lot of churches did that. On Wednesday night they had a growing youth program. Maybe they needed to consider moving that to another location or splitting it to two nights. She thought they had a problem. Warner Trail residents had a problem with parking on the street. Adding another 60 parking spaces without erecting a sign that says no parking in front of the church was not going to eliminate people parking on the street. She knew. She went to a church in the neighborhood that the commission was familiar with that had a problem with parking on residential streets. It was convenient and fast just to park on the street and not have to pull into the parking lot. Just adding more parking spaces would not solve the problem for Warner Trail. This had been going on for over a year that the church had considered converting this particular lot into a parking lot and she had observed that they had empty spaces in the parking lot on Sunday mornings, but people still parked in the street. It wasn't going to address those concerns of the people on Warner Trail. She noted that the commission had her letter that she sent to the Project Area 4 Committee which listed a lot of the concerns of the residents. They also received correspondence from Desert Breezes. This would have an impact on the neighborhood in general. It would increase the traffic and wouldn't solve any of the real concerns. The church needed to find some solution and she couldn't answer all of their concerns. All she could do was represent the facts. They all bought there on that street because they were one acre parcels with homes and this would change the whole complexion of that street and affect their property values. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 tow Chairperson Beaty asked Mrs. Frisco when she became aware of this proposal. He noted that the petition submitted was dated today and it was frustrating to him when he came to a meeting and found six letters at five minutes to 7:00 and wondered when she became aware of the application. Mrs. Frisco stated that she found out when making a call to the city asking about items going before Project Area 4 and she found out on August 9 it was going before Project Area 4. She was leaving on vacation and they were meeting August 21 so she left notices. When she got home she found out what the decision of Project Area 4 was and then asked when it would come before Planning Commission. She was on vacation, so she had to do it quickly. The minister also came to her because Phil Drell suggested that he talk with her as a representative of the street. The minister asked her months ago and she did canvas the neighbors then and informed him that they wanted it to remain a residential lot. Commissioner Jonathan said he was trying to see if there was a middle ground here because if there wasn't, they had an application before them that they were either going to say yes or no to it. No matter what the commission said to the application, it would make some people happy and other people unhappy so he was trying to see if there was some middle ground that would make everyone happy. Hypothetically, and they hadn't discussed it with the applicant, but he asked if there was anything conceivable in her mind since he was seeing that the church uses that property on Sundays and Wednesdays so five or five and a half days of the week it just sat there and wasn't a problem. He wondered if there was anything conceivable in her mind that would make the use on Sundays and Wednesdays acceptable. For example, and he reiterated that it wasn't the commission talking or that they were ready to propose these restrictions, but if there was a parking management plan in place, if there was a conditional use permit for the lot so that if traffic, noise or other violations became an issue the permit allowing the use of that lot could be revoked. It would allow the neighborhood to come in and say that the church was supposed to do a, b and c and they weren't, so they wanted the commission to revoke the conditional use permit. There could be a landscaping buffer along with the wall so that all they would see was greenery if that was possible. Maybe even going to an extreme and requiring that the lot be grass instead of dirt or asphalt so that it looked more like a park. And perhaps a traffic circulation plan so that people didn't park where they 40W 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 shouldn't. Those kinds of things that the staff has experience with. He asked if it was conceivable in Mrs. Frisco's mind that any or all of the above could be implemented to such an extent that the concerns would be allayed. Mrs. Frisco said no. She said it all sounded wonderful, but when it was right next door and faced the house across the street that had to look at it and deal with it--when they bought they expected to see another big home on a lot. Since Commissioner Jonathan brought up that it could be like a park, she said that when she sat on Project Area 4 they went round and round about parks. They knew there was a need for parks and were now getting one in Palm Desert Country Club Association area, but one of the things that stood out in her mind that they talked about, that the police talked about it and the park and recreation people talked about it and that was that when they had something enclosed on three sides that was not openly visible, all they were doing was inviting problems because kids and adults would use it. No matter what they put on that lot, it would be unsupervised, it wasn't going to be visible, and they knew they were just leaving themselves open to problems. They had a problem with it being a dirt lot because ..� kids decided it was a great place to put a bike track and they dug a hole three or four feet deep and they probably had many kids out there on bikes that almost got hit. MR. BILL O'NEILL, 77-552 Calle Las Brisas, informed commission that his home was at the south edge of the lot. He talked with the minister about a year ago and he mentioned that he would put in a parking lot and Mr. O'Neill told him it would probably help because they don't keep up the trash. He wasn't really against a parking lot. What he was against was: 1 ) if they put in a parking lot they would put in lights. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said it was his understanding that there was no request for it and at this point in time it wasn't included in the application. Mr. O'Neill said that with his house being right next to the wall, he got some light problems. They did occasionally, because the church every Thursday had a youth group, and there was a little noise. He didn't disagree with that primarily because he was a P.E. teacher and he appreciated good physical activity. But also they had a church on the 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 other side of their street at Washington, a big church, and occasionally they had a P.A. system that the kids got a hold of and that was what they didn't want happening. He saw that happening also when they had a group of kids. They liked that P.A. system and unfortunately all of Desert Breezes got to hear it. He particularly didn't want to hear that. MR. MARK NORAD, the site planner for 1 st Baptist Church of Palm Desert, said he currently holds a master's degree in landscape architecture and site planning. He had given this some considerable thought and the arguments and concerns mentioned were very valid. But he did think that what he was proposing for 1 st Baptist Church was a good thing, particularly for the neighborhood. As the church exists right now, it was in need of some landscaping, a parking lot, and the median was somewhat behind current standards regarding the need for landscaping that they see happening throughout the desert on relatively new projects. He did think that the potential for some mitigation existed. The parking lot access onto Robin Road could virtually be law eliminated. That would have to be studied. A potential exists for diverting traffic out onto Warner Trail which was currently where the traffic exits the parking lot. In regards to buffers and medians, the site proposed to incorporate a landscape buffer along the residential houses adjacent to the site on the east side of the site as well as the south side. That was about a ten-foot buffer with Palo Verde trees, Sweet Acacias, Cassias, etc. Plant material typical of the native desert. As well as a median along Robin Road and Warner Trail that would consist of the same plant material. This was an upgrade; a step toward progress and actually should give a better curb appeal and overall more favorable atmosphere to the neighborhood. Regarding lighting, there was lighting designated in the plan and they had given that some consideration as well. To be courteous to the neighborhood, he suggested using only a bollard lighting system. The lights would be approximately three and a half feet tall and about 50 watts each. He believed there were about 12, 15 or 18 lights proposed on the plan. Without any further information, he thought that generally some mitigation could potentially happen. He felt that the traffic being diverted onto Robin Road out of the parking lot was not necessarily favorable for the residents adjacent to the site and that could be changed. For Robin Road and the neighbors on Robin Road, if he was 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 a resident of Robin Road he would be quite pleased with the proposed landscaping median that would buffer the parking lot and hide any potential sore, unfavorable things like cars. Also, one other thing, about 25% of that site was designated for open space which was grass, a volleyball court which would probably only be used on Wednesday or Thursday nights, so not the entire site would be asphalt. He asked for any questions. MR. JEFF FRISCO, 77-575 Robin Road, said that they bought there eight years ago and at that time the church did not own that property. He didn't know if he would have bought at that time if he knew the church would own that property. He thought that eventually another home would be built next to their property. He said that his mother lives with them in the guest house which buts up to that property and he was concerned for her and for her well being that they would have that going on next door. He didn't think it should be allowed. Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Stallard wished to readdress the commission. Mr. Stallard said that in regards to the loud speakers, they certainly would have no objection to a condition prohibiting loud speakers. He said they didn't use them now and didn't intend to. He did want to say, as mentioned in his hand written note attached to the staff report, they were different from contemporary churches. They were very traditional and some of the things they saw in other churches they didn't do. He would not expect any loud events going on at the church. There weren't any now. There were elementary aged children that did make some noise, but it was limited to Sunday evenings and Wednesday evenings primarily. He didn't want to say there wouldn't be some other times occasionally that they would like to use it, but generally speaking it would just be twice a week. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell said she didn't know how the other commissioners felt about continuing this or if anything would be resolved. As she saw it and she was very familiar with what they went through with Southwest Community Church on Hovley Lane West. The commission put a lot of 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 r.. conditions on them and they had the neighbors coming to them all the time about the noise, traffic and other concerns. In looking at the area with the large homes on Robin Road, those residents bought there because of the size of the lots. That lot was empty and was planned for a home. She stated that she would be opposed to granting a conditional use permit for expansion. Commissioner Finerty concurred with Commissioner Campbell. She served as Chair of Project Area 4 when they were trying to come up with their specific plan and what might be best for that area. There was some controversy as to how the area was zoned at the time and they obtained the original CC&R's which dated back to 1956 and it was very clear that the intent back in 1956, as it was today, was for rural residential one acre parcels. They surveyed all of the homeowners on Robin Road, Mountain View and Delaware. They had neighborhood meetings and discussed it at Project Area 4. As a result of the meetings, the Project Area 4 Committee recommended a policy in the specific plan that said that the zoning needed to reflect the predominant existing land use and subdivision patterns. The specific plan was then approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. She knew that 1 st Baptist �.. Church was aware of this and knew this was rural residential. It was unfortunate that the people on Warner Trail were being inconvenienced, but she felt adding additional church services could grant them some relief. But to relocate one problem on Warner Trail to another problem on Robin Road was not the solution. Additionally, she didn't think it was fair to expect someone that bought a one acre parcel to have the lot right next to them or across the street from them turned into a paved parking lot. As soon as they paved the parking lot, they would be inviting roller skating, roller blading and skate boarding and all kinds of activities and there really wasn't going to be anyone there to monitor it. She didn't think it was fair to impose this on a rural residential area that had been intended for that purpose since 1956. She didn't know if there was a resolution of denial, but she did not see a point in continuing the matter. She also stated that homeowners in Desert Breezes would be directly affected by that lot because their homes would back right up to it. They were currently bothered by the existing noise at the church and they didn't want that noise coming even closer to them. She didn't see a point in a continuance and would move either for denial or for staff to prepare a resolution of denial. Commissioner Lopez concurred. He wasn't sure a continuance would alleviate any of the problems. This was a very difficult one because it did impact 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 perhaps an area that was needed for the youth programs of the church. The current parking area needed some work, the landscaping area needed some work, and obviously this would have somewhat of a positive impact to the visual aspect of the area, but all in all he would concur with his fellow commissioners. It would shift the burden from Warner Trail to Robin Road. He didn't know if the change in the exit or entrance would affect it one way or another because it fed right into the home across the street. He didn't think a continuance was the right way to go and was in favor of a denial. Commissioner Jonathan said he definitely shared the concerns that had been stated and the concerns of the residents that were brought up. However, he thought that a continuance could serve a useful purpose. First of all, this was a residential neighborhood. Churches are permitted uses in residential zoning. Typically churches, synagogues, temples, and so forth were located near the people they serve. They had that here. There was an existing church, not an application for a new church. The application was to expand its parking capacity. He saw that as an opportunity to solve problems rather than create problems because the comments he was hearing were to a large extent about existing problems. Maybe this was an opportunity to cure those problems as well as avoid future problems. If the church were to put into place a parking management plan that involved people out there directing traffic and insuring that there wasn't parking on residential streets. If the lot was allowed under a conditional use permit, it could be revoked. The landscaping buffer could be done adequately so that there was a row or double row of planting to shield the neighborhood from the noise and visual effect. The wall could serve the same purpose. A traffic circulation plan could eliminate access to Robin Road. They heard the applicant say that was potentially not a problem. Restrictions against lights, either entirely or against those exceeding three and a half feet, 50 watts in number, 15 or 20, something along those lines. Restrictions against noise such as no P.A. system or amplified sound system. And time restrictions such as no activity in the parking lot past 8:00 p.m., which the applicant indicated was the desired use. Measures like that put into place in such a way could possibly avoid a problem in the future but they might be able to cure the existing problems that he heard were there. His thought was a continuance was intended to provide the applicant an opportunity to examine potential solutions and to give the residents an opportunity to see if in fact that would make their life there better as opposed to worse. If the answer after the continuance was no, it was not acceptable to the residents, then he would be very persuaded by the earlier comments of his fellow commissioners. Uj 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 1r. Chairperson Beaty stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Jonathan. His initial reaction was very negative to the proposal and to what he heard this evening, but it bothered him when he showed up at the meeting and found six or eight letters in front of him that he had not had the opportunity to review and they couldn't be adequately reviewed in five minutes. It kind of indicated to him that they haven't had enough communication between the church and residents. Whether that was yea or nay, he would be in favor of a continuance to give one more opportunity to allow that to happen and hear from the residents and church in two weeks. He called for a motion. Commissioner Finerty asked staff if there was a resolution of denial before them. Mr. Smith replied no. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial by minute motion. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairperson Beaty and Commissioner Jonathan voted no). B. Case No. VAR 00-02 - SHELLY M. ARMOUR, Applicant Request for approval of a variance to the required front setback from 14 feet to 2 feet for a carport structure in front of the residence at 74-745 Leslie Avenue. Mr. Smith noted that the property was on Leslie west off of Cook Street. The applicant proceeded with a carport structure without benefit of a building permit as shown in a colored handout provided to the commission. The construction was stopped. The setbacks on the structure were such that staff could not approve them hence the need for the variance request. The structure was two feet from the property line versus 14 feet required. The structure with the two feet of setback from the property line was at 14 feet from the curb. The findings for approval of a variance as commission was aware were extremely difficult. They were outlined on the bottom of page one and the top of page two in the staff report. Particularly section "c" which stated that the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone. There were no other structures %W 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 y in this similar location in this neighborhood. As commission was aware, they recommended to the council at the last meeting a modification to the zoning ordinance which would allow carports to as close as 20 feet from curb. That matter would be referred to the City Council at its meeting next week on the 14th. With some modification this structure could comply with that provision if it was enacted by the council. In conclusion, staff felt the findings for the variance could not be affirmed and recommended that the variance be denied. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BOB ARMOUR, 74-656 Gary Street, stated that he was representing his ex-wife who was out of town. He said they got appropriate signatures from many of the homeowners in the area, some of which he just got. He showed the commission a diagram of the location of the residents who didn't mind the structure. He also had quite a few homes in the neighborhood who also signed off. No one seemed bothered by the structure. It couldn't be seen unless someone was within two houses of it when traveling down Leslie Street, either going east or west. He said it was a good 14 or 15 feet from the curb. He didn't think it created any kind of a driving hazard and didn't stick out beyond reason to where it looked unsightly. All the people in the neighborhood seemed to think it was a nice looking structure and didn't understand why there was a problem at all. As far as the construction of it and starting without the proper paperwork, he was not involved with that. He was just trying to help. Some of the signatures he just got and was sure there were more forthcoming. The house as it was bought had no carport structure. It was already converted with the appropriate inspections. The assessment was on the square footage of the house as it exists with the enclosed carport. That was done probably 20+ years ago. With the code that says there is supposed to be covered parking that was what the applicant was trying to get. It would be nice to have the car in the shade. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Armour had a financial interest in the home. He said yes, since he was making the payments on it. j 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 Commissioner Lopez asked if there used to be a carport with the house originally. Mr. Armour said yes. When the house was built in 1962 all the houses in the neighborhood were built with a carport. Many of the homes had been enclosed from long ago before it was ever incorporated by the city. It was done with the proper inspections. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the carport was 14 feet from curb. Mr. Armour said yes, he thought it was 14'6" or 14'8". That was the posts from the up side of the curb. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the new zoning would allow the carport to be a minimum of 20 feet from curb. Mr. Armour wasn't aware of that. Commissioner Jonathan noted that staff indicated that this could be modified to be in compliance with that revised ordinance should the ordinance be revised. He asked if that was a fair representation of what was said by Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith concurred, but said that whether it could "easily" be accomplished was another matter. Mr. Drell said that six feet would have to be cut off of it. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there would be sufficient length left to cover a car at that point. Mr. Drell said it would cover a small car. Mr. Armour said that the structure had a hip roof and to shorten it, the whole thing would have to be taken down and put up over again. There were some houses with block walls right along the curb in the neighborhood that have been there also quite some time and he didn't know the variance difference between having a block wall on a curb or having a carport 14 feet back from the curb. He didn't see where there was a big problem. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 s .r MR. IGNACIO SANCHEZ, a resident in the neighborhood, stated that he has known Mr. Armour for over 25 years. He thought the structure would be a good thing for the neighborhood because it would mean one less car parked on the street. They were all trying to make the neighborhood look better and if they were not encouraged to do so, then people would not do anything to improve their property. He understood that it was not in compliance with the new ordinance, but they needed to realize that those houses were built under county regulations and now it was very difficult for all the people who live in that neighborhood to comply with the new regulations. He was in favor. Chairperson Beaty explained that they weren't suggesting that the driveway be shortened. A car could still park in the driveway and wouldn't have to be parked on the street. Mr. Sanchez said he understood, but if they saw a car parked in the driveway and a car parked under a carport that is well built like the proposal, then it would be more attractive looking than just seeing a car ari in a driveway. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Lopez noted that when he was driving around, the homes at 74- 701 Leslie, 74-684 Leslie and 74-821 Merle all had carports that looked like they were relatively close to the street. He asked if those could have been built prior to incorporation. Mr. Smith said yes. Commissioner Jonathan said that he was sympathetic to the homeowner, but he thought the reason they had a permit process was to deal with issues like this constructively. The fact that the applicant failed to obtain a permit has put the applicant into this predicament. For that reason he was inclined to concur with the staff recommendation for denial. Commissioner Finerty agreed with Commissioner Jonathan. She would second that. She suggested making this a topic in the city newsletter on what the proper procedure would be since it seemed that carports had become a topic of the meetings. Willi 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 Commissioner Campbell concurred with the other commissioners. Existing carports had been converted in the past and the 20-foot setback would be in front of council and if that was approved, and they worked at that quite a while to reach that minimum, she would stay with a 20-foot minimum. Chairperson Beaty asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012, denying VAR 00-02. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. VAR 00-03 - BROOKE BERGH, Applicant %or Request for approval of a variance to the required front setback from 14 feet to 7 feet for a carport structure in front of the residence at 77-310 Wyoming Avenue. Mr. Smith noted that this was another carport constructed without benefit of a building permit. This one was a little further back from the street than the previous one. It was 7'9" from property line, which gave them an overall dimension of 19'9" from the curb. Staff had the same concern with respect to meeting the necessary findings for a variance. It was difficult to meet the finding for item "C". He pointed out that a letter was received from Palm Desert Country Club Association indicating that its Board of Directors has denied the request. A copy of that letter was in the commission packets. Staff also circulated to commission letters that had been received after the reports went out from people around the property who support the approval of the structure. This one would be very easily modified to meet the 20-foot provision that was discussed in the previous one. With the proviso that they get the homeowners' association to become less objectionable in that the ordinance that commission referred to council required the matter to go through the Architectural Review Commission with notice to homeowners' associations and the neighbors within 300 feet. Given what they had seen thus far, they probably didn't have a problem with the neighbors within 300 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 feet. Staff wasn't clear where the association would be on a modified request. He felt the findings could not be affirmed and recommended that the variance request be denied. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CARL WORLEY, a business associate of the applicant, addressed the commission. He said that this was very similar to the case the commission just reviewed with a couple of exceptions. The first exception was regarding the homeowners' association. They had a situation which they handled previously with someone else building a carport that was close to the street and needed a variance and they denied it. They were much closer to the street than this one. When the association received the paperwork on this request, they said "oh, another one" and denied it. At that point a letter was written to them requesting an open hearing to discuss it. They wouldn't be back in session until September 11 . Consequently, it was hard to determine what the Palm Valley Country Club Association's decision would be. They had been told that if the Planning Commission would indicate that it would fit somewhat in with their structure, they would probably approve it. The big difference with this house was that it was built quite a few years ago and it had two cement driveways going toward the house. There was a 10-foot overhang on the roof from the house. The additional structure which was built without a permit by two friends of the owner on a Saturday, which was in error, and she was very sorry for that and it would be corrected, but it was built to code because these were two licensed carpenters. They added a nine-foot flat roof to the existing roof and it followed the architectural look perfectly. It was 19'9" from the curb which came very close to the possible modification of it. All the neighbors had been contacted in the area and a number of people had written to the commission. It didn't seem to stand out and be of any major problem to the area. It did give the applicant an opportunity to park the car in the shade. The ten-foot overhang of the roof and the direction of the two cement pads coming into it did not allow them to park the car parallel to the house because they couldn't make the turn. This was the reason for it. It could be modified size wise with the end being cut off to get within the 20-foot margin. All he could say was that he thought it was an honest error in 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 low not having a permit and if they got approval it would get painted and look perfect and improve the neighborhood because the car wouldn't be sticking out in a driveway. It would be under a cover. It was an open carport with no sides on it and would look good. Commissioner Finerty asked if the applicant would be amenable to going back through the homeowner's association and filing the appropriate architectural variance form. Mr. Worley said yes. That would be done on September 11 . Commissioner Finerty asked if they would work through the confines of the association's CC&Rs and the correct procedures. Mr. Worley replied that the major thing in the variance was the closeness of the street. In other words, it was too close to the street and that was why they turned it down. Commissioner Finerty asked if the homeowner's association had guidelines for carports. Mr. Worley said no. He had the book and there was nothing that specifically addressed it. They just said no after the problem they had previously. There was no discussion on it at the last meeting and then they went dark for two months during the summer. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. He asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell felt that in this case with the carport being just short of three inches and with the ordinance amendment going before the City Council soon, if the applicant wanted to go before their homeowner's association, she would like to have this continued until after they meet with the association and see if they got approval from the association. She felt they could then make some changes of three inches so that the applicant could have the carport within 20 foot guideline. Commissioner Jonathan concurred but suggested that they give the applicant enough time to: a) go through the proper and complete permit process; b) lam 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 obtain homeowner's association approval; and c) allow the City Council to modify the zoning ordinance because if for some reason they didn't, the 20 feet would become a different issue. Staff indicated that the council meeting was September 14. Commissioner Jonathan suggested 30 days to allow the process to take place and continue the matter to the meeting of October 3. Commissioner Finerty agreed with a continuance to October 3 to see what the homeowner's association had to say. Commissioner Lopez said he would move for approval. Chairperson Beaty noted that they were talking about compliance or noncompliance and he wasn't sure if three inches made a difference. He would be in favor of denial because of the same reasons as the previous case. The previous variance request was much more attractive than this one. He asked for a motion. Commissioner Finerty commented that she would, too, but felt it needed to go back to the homeowner's association first. Chairperson Beaty said he thought the whole Palm Desert Country Club area needed to address this issue. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Chairperson Beaty said that if they wanted to put all of them on continuance until the issue is addressed by the neighborhood that would be his desire, but that didn't seem to be an option, except in this instance. Like the other ones, he would be in favor of denial. Commissioner Jonathan said he just wanted to clarify that he shared Commissioner Beaty's concerns. The distinguishing feature in his mind was when he asked if it could easily be modified to meet the 20-foot requirement should that come into existence, and he was left with the impression that it really couldn't. Whereas this one was pretty much at the 20-foot requirement. That was the distinction in his mind. Commissioner Lopez said that was his feeling also. Chairperson Beaty strongly felt that the previous application looked fine from the photographs and visually. This one did not. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that this one wasn't finished yet. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing Case No. VAR 00-03 to October 3, 2000 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson Beaty voted no). i s 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 D. Case Nos. PP 00-07 and PMW 00-05 - BASIC CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for 2 two-story office buildings (23,550 square feet total building area) and a parcel map waiver to adjust property lines on 2.9 acres on the west side of Cook Street, north of Gerald Ford Drive, 74-950 Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Smith noted that plans were on display. The property was at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford. He explained that when the application originally came in, it was for the entire five acre site. Plans for the service station, convenience store and restaurant had not moved along as swiftly as the office proposal on the north end. The 2.9 acres at the north end was what was before the commission now as well as the parcel map which the commission received in their packets which showed the access road which would be created. There would be two offices. There would not be an access to Cook Street. He described how the circulation and access would be designed. He noted that commission approved the Wonder Palms Commercial Center Development Plan in 1997. This property was part of Planning Area 2 which showed a land use designation as "to encourage mixed use residential and office uses" and indicated that PC-3 standards were to be used. The plan met those provisions as shown in the staff report. It met parking, setbacks, height, and coverage. The project would be conditioned to having the future street in place open for vehicular traffic prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the building. The elevations were quite conceptual and did receive conceptual approval from Architectural Review. They were more impressed with the model the applicant provided. Findings for approval were outlined on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report. Environmentally the project was reviewed as part of the Wonder Palms Plan and there was a negative declaration certified pursuant to Council Ordinance No. 838. No further review was necessary. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Smith distributed the material sample board. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the height of the structure varied. With the setbacks as indicated in the chart, they seemed to be more than ample with the exception of the west setback. He asked how tall the building was at the point that it was only 20 feet away from the curb. Mr. Smith said it was 20 feet from property line, so typically they would get 12 feet of parkway 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 t so they were looking at 32 feet. For the most part it was much more generous than 20 feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked how tall the structure was at the closest point. Mr. Marvin Roos said it was near 24 feet. Commissioner Jonathan thanked him. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MARVIN ROOS, with Mainiero, Smith & Associates at 777 Tahquitz in Palm Springs, stated that they were basically there asking for approval. They were looking at being a tenant in the northerly building and Disc was looking at occupancy and ownership of the southerly building. They weren't looking at spec buildings, but at hopefully good tenants coming to Palm Desert. They had been working on this since Katrina Heinrich had this property and it was now Basic Capital and Dan Allred of Affiliated Construction would be the owners and builders of this facility. A lot of good local talent was coming together. They did a couple of fairly typical kinds of studies and he wasn't quite sure what brought this particular architect to the table, but if they studied contemporary architecture, Disc was a ".com". They were very interested in an architectural statement that was kind of fun, which was what they were. Part of the evolution of this architecture dealt with some comments made by Planning Commission when they were talking about the other side of the freeway and possible views of roofs. It really evolved into this solution of doing something fun on the roof. That was the architecture that would be seen 95% of the time on this building because a person would drive over the freeway, look down on it and it was so hidden that they would see a little when traveling north on Cook Street and was quite a distance from Gerald Ford, but the real elevations would be the roofs and they would be a lot of fun and would screen the air-conditioning equipment. He said that Wes Oliphant would speak a little bit more to the topic of Art in Public Places but they would see these forms extending into the landscaping to be their architectural statement and would create an environment. Aside from the Art in Public Places, they only had one area of concern on conditions. Page 6 number 13. "The intersection of the proposed access street and Gerald Ford Drive shall be limited to right-turn movements only." Mr. Roos informed commission that this was a location that was on the development plan for full access onto Gerald nj 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 Ford. There weren't many, but they would be looking at people moving easterly on Gerald Ford to be able to turn into this fairly major street. He thought it was over 600 feet away from Cook and met the criteria that would normally allow that. He suggested that they continue having dialogue with Public Works. Unfortunately with vacations they just got the conditions late this afternoon and weren't able to make any phone calls. When he first read that he thought it was the small access drive, but believed now that it was intended to affect that street. Obviously they would have some concern about that. He indicated the buildings were very similar in general elevation other than the elements around the roof and they were integrated on the site through a central courtyard area that would again involve these forms as well as some forms to stop some of the wind issues that would be out there. The wind would always be there. They had some interesting discussion with their staff about moving out there and about what it would be like for the first five or six years as all of the development starts happening. It was going to be a challenge for sure. When coming off the freeway they would be looking down and that was one of the reasons there was so much emphasis on that. Mr. Roos showed the view of the elements when approaching from the interior. He indicated that all the glass would be shaded and set back and then the elements around the courtyard would be defined. He felt it would be an exciting office complex and thought it would be a very interesting new look when entering Palm Desert with the college on one side so they were very excited about this, as was Disc. They were also looking at other sites that would continue to extend this cutting edge element out in the area around the freeway. Other than the one condition, they were in concert with staff and their recommendation. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. WESLEY OLIPHANT, 77-900 Avenue of the States in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said that as soon as they received approval and Mr. Roos could generate those legal lot lines, he would take title to the property and would start construction. One condition that Mr. Roos touched on had to do with the Art in Public Places requirement. With respect to the architectural elements on the roof that would create additional interest, it was not generally figured into or anticipated into the cost for an industrial type building. The City did tAW 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 .rJ have the Art in Public Places fee which was a substantial fee. He said there were some challenges and there had been quite a bit of discussion on how they might accomplish those free form structures and making them work with the elements they have in that location. He believed it would come out to be a beautiful building. When looking at Art in Public Places, they would like to request that they be relieved of that particular fee. Mr. Drell explained that wasn't the purview of the Planning Commission. If Mr. Oliphant hadn't talked with the Art in Public Places Committee yet, in essence they could make the case that they were incorporating art into the building and therefore that expense should be credited into their fee. That was a process that had to be done through AIPP. Commissioner Jonathan noted that it was Condition 11 of Community Development Department's approval. Mr. Oliphant said that they were on record for having asked for the variance. Mr. Drell said it was up to the committee. The fee was in lieu of providing art and their argument was that they were providing art and should therefore get credit for that. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or a motion. Commissioner Jonathan said the proposal was way cool and would move for approval. Mr. Greenwood said that regarding Condition 13, they wrote the condition without having benefit of seeing a plan that showed where the access road tied onto Gerald Ford and as far as he knew, they still didn't have a plan. He noted that Gerald Ford curves continuously in this area and did potentially provide them with some sight distance problems. He could see the potential for allowing left turns into the site, but probably not left turns out of the site due to sight distance concerns, but would be glad to work with the applicant. Mr. Drell said that the condition could be modified to add "or as determined by the City Engineer." 8 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 Commissioner Jonathan said that was fine. He understood that was what the applicant was requesting - a continued dialogue with staff on that issue and he would have no problem with that and would amend Condition 13 as indicated. Chairperson Beaty advised that if the applicant had a concern or problem with conditions, there was a mechanism that would allow them to appeal. Commissioner Finerty stated that she thought the project looked great. Commissioner Lopez concurred and was glad that they brought up the wind situation and that it was taken into consideration. He thought it was a great looking structure and agreed that the most captivating view would be from the freeway looking down on it. Commissioner Campbell stated that it was a very impressive building. She informed the applicant that she serves on the Art in Public Places Committee and she felt this was a piece of art in itself. She didn't think they would have r„ a problem there. She said she would second Commissioner Jonathan's motion as amended. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013, approving Case Nos. PP 00-07 and PMW 00-05, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. PP 00-02 - GHA HOLDINGS III, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan of design to construct a 4,751 square foot professional office building located at 73-081 Fred Waring Drive. %W 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 j Mr. Alvarez stated that the request was for a precise plan of approval for a two-story office building. The parcels were located on the south side of Fred Waring Drive approximately 350 feet east of Monterey Avenue. The existing property consisted of two lots. The westernmost parcel currently had a 1 ,300 square foot single family residence and the easternmost parcel was vacant. The applicant intended to demolish the 1 ,300 square foot residence and merge the two lots into one. The properties were zoned Office Professional and were designated Office Professional in the city's general plan. The building would be a 4,751 square foot office building with a maximum height of 25 feet at a projection located on the northern elevation. The rest of the building had a 23'3" height. The first floor would have 1 ,500 square feet of building floor area and the second floor would have 3,183 square feet. The second floor exceeded the square footage of the first floor because it overhangs on the south elevation over a row of covered parking spaces. He provided a picture that showed an example of this type of development along a rear yard. The properties were located along the Fred Waring corridor. To the west the properties adjacent to the developed office building which was Dr. Reed's building and to the east there was another office building known as the Cultural Center Building. He pointed out that elevations were on display. Colors were illustrated. He noted that there was a small photograph of a rendering. He apologized to the commission and applicant noting the project was originally submitted back in February and unfortunately the colored elevations had been misplaced. He stated that he could attest that the colors were representative of what they saw on the material board sample. The Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval on August 8. The building was before the Architectural Commission on three occasions and was continued to allow the applicant to implement some of the suggestions concerning the screening of mechanical equipment, a staircase which was originally fronting on Fred Waring and is now behind a stone wall veneer. The location of the carports along the south elevation was moved back five feet. The north elevation windows included recessing and the top architectural element on the south elevation was beefed up. Those were just issues that were addressed and were reflective on the elevations. In terms of parking and access, the property would take access from Fred Waring Drive. It would utilize a joint access with the property to the west. An additional four foot wide driveway would be created a total of 24 feet to allow the joint access for the two properties. At the eastern end the property would tie into the adjacent property which also had access on Fred Waring Drive. In essence they were eliminating a driveway for this property using a joint access on both 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 iv. sides. The property or building had a total of 4,038 square feet of usable space which required 16 off street parking spaces. The project provided 19, all of which were covered, either in carports or underneath the building overhang. The precise plan met all the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The architectural design and the site plan were compatible with the adjacent buildings. Staff recommended approval and felt the findings for approval could be made. For purposes of CEQA, the project was determined to have no significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared. He recommended approval and asked for questions. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the front setback referred to the setback on Fred Waring and the structure was two stories at that point ranging between 23 and 25 feet. Mr. Alvarez said that was correct. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RUDY HERERRA, 68-936 Adelina Road in Cathedral City, stated that they have been working on this project now for a few months going through the design phase with the Architectural Review Committee and thought they had finally gotten everything they were looking for. He said they designed a very handsome building that had very clean lines and was something that would enhance the Fred Waring corridor. They were excited about putting the building up. They would have all covered parking which he thought would add value to a tenant. He asked for any questions. There were no questions and Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. DR. REED, the tenant to the west, stated that he would like to be assured that a couple of things happen. He said he talked with the planning people a couple of weeks ago and one issue was that the driveway and parking lot be concrete like his. Mr. Hererra had to move water that comes in on that property line to him and Mr. Hererra's planter didn't but up with his and he thought it was probably just an oversight, but those were things he wanted to ensure were taken care of prior to getting started. He wanted to see the building moved since 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 there hadn't been any water to the property in months and it was about to burn down. Mr. Alvarez said that the use of concrete was addressed in Condition 7. Regarding the planter, he was guessing that the applicant was talking about the one along the southern portion and he just wanted that to tie in with his. He thought that could be accommodated on the working drawings to make sure that happened, unless the commission wanted to specifically make that a condition of approval. Mr. Drell said that unfortunately staff didn't really understand it and wondered if the applicant really understood it and had no problem with it. Mr. Drell said it could be added as a condition. Mr. Hererra said that if the commission would like to add those as conditions, they wanted to be good neighbors and work with Dr. Reed in accommodating those. He thought they were very reasonable and wouldn't have any problem with proceeding along those lines. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell said she was wondering how long that residence was going to remain there on Fred Waring and was happy to read that it would be torn down. She thought it was an excellent project and went well with the Fred Waring corridor. She said she would move for approval. Commissioner Jonathan said that he could certainly understand the commission's desire to approve it, but he did have a couple of problems with the proposal. Number one, he didn't see a rendering until tonight but he did see the 3" x 6" picture. He didn't know what it was going to look like and didn't feel comfortable approving something that he didn't know what it would look like. He heard staff's acceptance of the responsibility and knew it wasn't the applicant's fault, but he was nevertheless uncomfortable approving something when he didn't know what it would look like. Number two and maybe more significantly, in his mind the setback issue was really, really important and they had another example here of a situation where the setback would be 12 feet and the height was basically double that. Instead of a 1 :1 ratio they were looking at a situation where the height was twice the amount of setback and he thought that was inappropriate. For that reason alone he 3 would object to the application. On the good side, the size of the lot at 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 14,560 square feet should easily be able to accommodate a 4,700 square foot office building with a footprint that would be setback. With a little bit of creativity the building could basically be moved to accommodate a 1 :1 setback ratio. Mr. Alvarez said that in terms of the 1 :1 ratio, if they took that setback from curb, he had a 16-foot parkway and then a 12-foot minimum setback. The majority of the property was at 14, so if they took that combined, the 16 foot parkway with the 12-foot setback minimum there was a total of 28 feet from curb. The building was 24 feet high. Mr. Drell said that in terms of their discussion in creating a 1 :1 ratio, they felt the appropriate measurement was from curb since parkways vary and where they got into trouble was where there was a substandard parkway like at the Dr. Shah building where because of that they didn't achieve a 1 :1 ratio. Typically all the other buildings had, because of the combination of setback and parkway, they were all in excess of 1 :1 just as this one would be. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the setback was of the building on El Paseo and Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Drell said that off of El Paseo the setback was five feet as are all the buildings on El Paseo. It was 15 feet off the curb. On El Paseo, the nature of that particular zone was that the buildings were closer. Commissioner Jonathan asked for .. clarification as to how much of a setback there was. Mr. Drell said 15 feet. Commissioner Jonathan expressed surprise and said he didn't think it exceeded more than five and the height must be at least 24. Mr. Drell said the height was 30 feet as was the standard in the zone. Commissioner Jonathan said that was the height of two times the setback from curb, but here the distance from curb would be 28 feet, whereas the height would be 24-25 feet. Mr. Drell said that was correct. The big difference in the C-1 zone was that there was only a five-foot setback. Commissioner Jonathan said that he wasn't saying that staff or prior commission did anything inappropriate, he was trying to determine what they would be looking at. Mr. Drell said that it was a different zone with different standards. Commissioner Jonathan understood that, but said that it amounted to the same thing in his mind, which is what they would see when driving past. What Mr. Drell was saying was persuasive and that was that they maintain the 1 :1 ratio from curb in this particular application. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Commissioner Finerty concurred with Commissioner Jonathan and said that she spent about two hours trying to figure out what this building would look like. She talked with Steve Smith, Martin Alvarez and even tried to call Kristi Hanson, one of the Architectural Commissioners because she had no clue as to what it would look like. She needed to see a rendering and recalled how 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 i i they spoke about Mike Homme's picture and how great it was to have that in front of them. She couldn't begin to approve anything that she had no clue what it would look like and the fact that there was going to be an overhang just further confused her and for that reason she had to vote against it. She pointed out that Mr. Smith did explain how it would actually be a 1 :1 ratio with the 12 foot landscaped area and the 15% curb property line because that was an issue she raised as well. Chairperson Beaty asked if there was a motion. Commissioner Jonathan stated for the record that the only reason he would be voting in opposition was because he was in favor of a continuance to allow them to see a rendering. At this point having heard staff's comments that would be his only concern. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Finerty and Jonathan voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014, approving Case No. PP 00-02, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Finerty and Jonathan voted no). F. Case Nos. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-05, TT 29468, TT 29555 and DA 00-01 - ABD PALM DESERT 118, LLC, Applicant (Continued from August 15, 2000) Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential/Industrial to Low Density Residential/Park, a Change of Zone from R-1 12,000 to PR-4/Open Space, a Tentative Tract Map for 270 single family lots (8,000 square feet minimum) and one lot for park purposes, a nine lot Tentative Tract Map for financing purposes and a Development Agreement on 117.5 +/- acres at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Row Drive and Country Club Drive. j 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 ` w Mr. Winklepleck stated that this item was before the commission at the last meeting. It was continued for two reasons. The first was an error in the labels that the city received to mail out legal notices. Between the last meeting and this meeting staff revised those labels and notified all the folks in Regency Estates as well as Regency Palms to make sure everyone that could be affected by the project would know about the meeting. The other item was that at the 11 th hour there was a request by the applicant to allow two story units on the interior of the project. Thus, the application was revised from R-1 12,000 with a request to allow R-1 8,000 to this one which was R-1 12,000 to PR-4. The PR zone allowed two story units on the interior. The tract map showing the 270 units was on display as well as the tract map for financing purposes showing nine lots and the landscaping plan for Tamarisk Row and Country Club. The project was a 117.5 acre parcel. The project consisted of 270 single family lots on 79.2 acres with a park lot on the remaining 38.3 acres. The park was a separate lot and the park project would come before Planning Commission and City Council as a separate public hearing item. Staff would also at the point of conceptual design be presenting the park site to Regency Estates, Regency Palms and the other effected neighborhoods in the area. Regarding the general plan amendment, the current general plan was low density residential with an industrial designation. The request was to continue low density residential with a park designation. The park designation would apply to the park parcel, a 38.3 acre site. Also, this request would be to change the open space recreation element of the general plan to reflect this change. The second item would be the change of zone. The change of zone request affected the current R-1 12,000 zoning. The request was to go to PR- 4 which was planned residential, four units per acre, and open space. The current R-1 12,000 zoning permitted developments with a minimum 12,000 square feet. The proposed PR-4 would permit low density residential with a maximum of four dwelling units per acre. The PR-4 zone would only apply to the residential portion of the project. This zoning would allow the developer the flexibility to build two story single family homes with a maximum height of 24 feet on the interior of the project. No two story homes would be permitted on the perimeter lots of the project. There were two tentative tract maps as discussed. The first would divide the property into a total of 270 single family lots with one park lot. There were three additional lots for utility purposes along the north and east portion of the property. The second map, TT 29555, would subdivide the property into nine lots. This was for financing purposes. The layout of the first map with the 270 single family lots was designed to create two separate projects. The northernmost project which 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 i .od would consist of 133 lots and have dedicated access off Tamarisk Row and access off of Country Club. The southern project would consist of the remaining 137 lots and would also have a single dedicated access off of Tamarisk Row and shared access from Country Club. Both projects were designed to be private, walled, gated communities. The southern access point was designed to align with the Regency Estates access point and the access point for the project on Country Club would align with the access at the Palm Desert Resort Country Club. For comparison purposes, if the park site were removed and the entire 117.5 acres was subdivided according to the current zoning, approximately 304 units could be built. It would depend upon the layout of the streets. If they took the 270 lots with the proposed standards along with the park site, the overall density of the units on the overall site did not increase. The perimeter landscaping and entryway landscaping along Country Club Drive and Tamarisk Row had been reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission and received preliminary approval. All the homes going into the project would go through the Architectural Review Commission. In addition to the zone change, general plan amendment and the tentative tracts, there was a development agreement with the project. The development agreement essentially detailed the requirements and conditions as specified. Also, it identified conditions of land purchase and anything else associated with the requirement of the park site. The development would give the applicant vested rights for the project. There were a couple of requested exceptions to the setbacks. Those were detailed in the staff report, particularly with regard to the side yard setbacks. The smallest side yard setbacks which would occur would be on the smaller lots which would be lots less than 73 feet wide and that would allow for a ten foot combined side yard setback, five feet and five feet which had been granted in the past on other projects along Hovley. As the lots got wider the setbacks also increased up to a 12-foot setback. The general plan amendment and change of zone to allow single family development and the park site would not be out of character with other projects in the area. With the exception of the project to the west, Regency Estates and Regency Palms, the other projects in the immediate area were similar in size. That included Whitehawk and smaller lots in the area of the project including Palm Desert Resort and Country Club and Indian Ridge Country Club. Those projects had golf courses. The proposed tentative tract met all the PR-4 zoning requirements. There was one additional request the applicant was asking for which was detached accessory structures to allow them in the rear yard area to within six feet. Staff's stance was that these would not be allowed on perimeter lots which would affect public 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 streets, but only on interior lots. Also, there was a condition requiring that the builder of the lots inform any potential buyers of the potential for these detached accessory structures and the impacts they may have. The city received a number of phone calls and quite a few letters from adjacent property owners. Specifically there were a couple of letters from Regency Estates Homeowners Association, one which was dated about a year ago, and another dated August 24, 2000. The letters indicated some concerns and those concerns were listed in the staff report. Their concerns included traffic on Tamarisk Row and access onto the street. Staff's response to that was two fold. One, Tamarisk Row was identified as a major thoroughfare in the general plan circulation element and when it was widened to four lanes, it was identified to have a capacity of approximately 26,000 trips per day while maintaining a service level of "C". There was a traffic count conducted in August of this year. While it was off season, they knew it was probably a low number compared to what would happen during season. The numbers showed approximately 5,000 trips on Tamarisk Row. Even if that number was doubled adding to the numbers produced by the proposed project which, according to the National Transportation Engineers at 10 trips per day per household, the `„ total trips coming out of this project would increase that number by 2,700. Even if two-thirds of the additional traffic came out onto Tamarisk Row, this would still be at a service level "A". Basically Tamarisk Row was designed to handle additional traffic and the increase of new units would not significantly the traffic to a point that it could not handle. One of the other concerns was the aesthetics of the gate entryway. As seen on the landscape plans and as indicated the plans received preliminary approval from the Architectural Commission. The landscape was similar in nature to what was provided around Desert Willow and to the south along Oasis, although it hadn't been maintained very well by the association. It was in keeping with previously approved projects as far as aesthetics. There was also a concern of lighting. That the applicant work with the City of Palm Desert to make sure no street lighting was installed along Tamarisk Row. The response to that was that at this time the City didn't have any intention of installing lights along Tamarisk Row and would not install lights if there was an agreement from adjacent property owners. There would most likely be safety or accent lighting installed at the entrances. These would be required to conform with the city's lighting ordinance in order to minimize impacts, if any, on the adjacent properties. There was also concern with the type of development and there was a statement that basically said they strongly believed that the development of this property should be residential with homes in the $250,000 to $350,000 war 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 ;i price range. The proposed zoning didn't include any commercial and according to the developer's representative, the estimated average price for the homes would be in the mid $200,000. He noted that the city typically didn't regulate cost of housing; that was something that the market would take care of. Another concern was with the Southern California Edison lines along Tamarisk and the under grounding of them. Staff investigated this and there were 115 kilovolt transmission lines. They were not currently part of the city's undergrounding program. The lines would most likely not be under grounded unless they became part of the citywide undergrounding district as the cost to underground these lines was approximately $1 million a mile. Item number six on the list was if the lots would be a minimum 8,000 square feet in size. He said yes, the minimum lots would be 8,470 square feet and the average lot would be 9,695 square feet. There was one additional item from the letter asking if there would be a minimum of 25% lot coverage by the residential units and the answer was yes. Additional concerns raised by the August 11 letter included density of the construction and the appearance that the developer was trying to concentrate far too many homes into the project. The response by staff to that was that the density as proposed still continued to meet the city's low density criteria of three to five dwelling units per acre as defined by the city's general plan. Another concern was that there hadn't been any information provided pertaining to construction of the homes. They were concerned about lot sizes, subsequent home sizes and the architecture of the homes. The developer as previously noted was requesting some side yard setback exceptions to allow larger homes and the architecture of the proposed single family homes would be reviewed by the city's architectural commission. In the past they had invited adjacent concerned associations and neighbors to be part of that. He was sure whoever took the project before the Architectural Review Commission would have that same attitude. The last concern as noted was that the park size would lead to additional traffic congestion in the area and perhaps an increase in crime. They wanted some clarification for the city's plans for patrolling the area. When a conceptual design was available, Mr. Winklepleck said he would present the project to surrounding residential neighborhoods for review and comment. In general the traffic created by park usage would occur on Country Club Drive which was designed to handle the additional traffic. Based on the park design if any additional safety measures were warranted, including increased patrols, those would be installed. He noted that there were a couple of items in the k conditions and development that he wanted to address. Specifically under Department of Community Development, condition 8 where it read that the 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 applicant agreed to maintain the landscaping required, he wanted to add the word "perimeter" before landscaping as they would be responsible for that. The city would take over the maintenance of the island along Country Club. Also, the next condition, number 9 where it read that the project would be subject to all applicable fees at issuance of building permits including but not limited to Art in Public Places, Fringe Toed Lizard, TUMF, and school mitigation and housing mitigation, housing mitigation should be removed. Also, they needed to add "or as otherwise provided in the development agreement". There were some specifics as far as costs associated with the project. If it didn't occur quickly and if costs were to arise, they were locked into the current standards. The next condition would be number 9 of Public Works which read, "In accordance with the Circulation Network of the Palm Desert General Plan, installation of the landscape median" should instead read "installation of the north half of the landscape median" since the developer of this project would only be responsible for their half of the portion of the median. The other half in this case would be picked up by the city. Mr. Drell explained that the applicant would install the entire median and be reimbursed 50% of the costs by the city. Commissioner Finerty noted that there was no too mention of a median in number 9. Mr. Winklepleck explained that there was a new resolution passed out to commission before the meeting and the changes were to the new resolution. He apologized for the confusion. Chairperson Beaty asked if there were any other changes in the new set of conditions as opposed to the one they received in their packet. Mr. Winklepleck said yes, the conditions in the staff report were old ones, so the handout with the amendments mentioned were correct. Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Winklepleck could tell the commission the changes between the ones in the packet and the ones distributed at the meeting. Mr. Winklepleck went through the conditions and noted any changes. Chairperson Beaty asked when the applicant received the correct conditions. Mr. Winklepleck said that the applicant actually received them late Friday. Commissioner Jonathan asked out of the 277 lots, how many were below the 14-foot combined side yard setback. Mr. Winklepleck said the majority would be located in the northern half and estimated that it was approximately 100- 110 units. Mr. Drell asked if they would all be subject to it. Mr. Winklepleck said yes, with the exception of some of the cul-de-sac units. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there were two story units with 15 foot side yards and asked if all the one story units would be an exception to the 14-foot requirement. Mr. Winklepleck said yes. Mr. Drell clarified that they could be, 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 i ..rl but might not be. Commissioner Jonathan said he was asking how many there were and if staff knew. Mr. Drell said no and explained that typically people choose difference houses on different lots and depended on how they fall out. It wasn't predetermined. Mr. Winklepleck said that it would also depend on whether they went single or two story on the interior. That would definitely affect it. Mr. Drell said that if someone picked a smaller unit on a bigger lot, the setback would end up being 14 or more. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were saying that potentially it was all of them. Mr. Drell said yes, potentially they all could be 10-12 combined. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the right to build accessory structures went with the life of the property or the 12-year term of the development agreement. He asked if the right to construct the accessory structure ever expired. Mr. Erwin stated that it expired at the end of 12 years. Whatever was not built at the end of 12 years that was it, unless the city's ordinances otherwise permit it. Commissioner Campbell said unless the ordinance didn't permit it. Mr. Drell said that technically in the PR zone standards were as approved by the Planning Commission. So if they did these exceptions pursuant to the development agreement, then they had the term of the development agreement. If they did it pursuant to the standards under the PR zone to grant exceptions, then they could specify any term in excess of that as they might MAI want. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the application was silent, it would be based on the development agreement. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff could confirm it for him, but he didn't see any common area amenities such as green space, tennis courts, pools or anything on the plan in the residential section. Mr. Drell said there weren't any. There was going to be a park next door. They created the minimum 8,000 square foot lots with the understanding that in lieu of meeting the typical PR standards as to lot size which was considerably smaller with common amenities, which was why they created the larger lot size without the amenities. Commissioner Jonathan thanked staff. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ALLAN LEVIN, of Allan Levin Associates at 76-768 Bishop Place in Palm Desert, thanked staff. He explained that it has been close to 15 months going through the process of the park and establishing the values, sizes and various configurations they dealt with and the conditions. He did have a couple of questions regarding some of the 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 conditions. In the latest version of the conditions, Community Development Condition 15 dealt with the perimeter wall and perimeter landscaping and it required that both the wall and landscaping adjacent to the public streets be installed with phase one of the project. Due to the cost implications of putting all that in up front, what they would request was that they go ahead along Country Club since that was the scenic corridor and the window into the entry of the project and along the entry road, both the wall and landscape be installed with phase one, however, on Tamarisk Row the wall would be installed with phase one but the perimeter landscaping could be installed commensurate with the phasing of the project development as it developed along those areas. One reason was because of the cost and another was that they might not have water available until the internal infrastructure was there to provide for irrigation for the landscaping. Under Department of Public Works on Condition 15, he requested a clarification. The third bullet item said installation of full street improvements for street "I" as a requirement. Per the terms of the development agreement, that public street was split between the development and the adjacent park site in terms of requirements for cost of installation. It would be split between the City and developer. On that same Condition 15, the second to the last bullet item, it said that the installation of transit facilities as may be required by Sunline Transit and he wanted to read into the record that it was their understanding at this point that those improvements were limited to a curb turnout and providing electrical service for a future bus line. At the present time there was no bus line running on Country Club Drive between Washington Street and Cook Street. They understood from staff in their discussions with Sunline that it was on Sunline's future program, but at this time there was no bus. By placing anything more than the turnout and the provision for electricity for the future would be an unfair burden to this project. The last bullet item was installation of pedestrian/bicycle route facilities along the northerly project boundary. Conceptually there was a nexus question there since it wasn't adjacent to a public street. It was a regional bikeway and he questioned if it was up to the project to install. More than that it was vague. He asked what they were being asked to do. Were they just being asked to put in a concrete or asphalt bike path? Did it take benches? Did it take shade structures? Did it take landscaping? Who would own it? Who would maintain it? Who would be responsible for the liability? Those questions had not been answered. It was his 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 i understanding that this had been something that council wished to see in the city. The increase of the bike circulation or bike paths but they wanted to get some clarification on exactly what was being asked of them so they knew going in what was being required. Mr. Greenwood said that starting with Lot "I," it was his understanding that they would like the project to build the complete road and then maybe there would be some agreement as to reimbursement from the City. He said that was something he would be happy to work with the applicant on. Regarding the transit facility, at this time the bus turned at Cook Street. He had recently seen Sunline's seven year plan and it did include service on Country Club by the year 2003. Those facilities were at Sunline's discretion, but his understanding was that they were a turnout, a bus shelter and all the amenities include water and electricity. As far as the pedestrian and bike route, he believed all they were asking for was dedication of the right-of-way and no physical construction. Mr. Levin asked if that would just be through an easement to the city or actually if it was street right-of-way dedication and dedicated on the {god map. Mr. Greenwood said it would be dedicated on the map. That was his understanding and Public Works would be happy to work with the applicant to everyone's satisfaction. Mr. Levin asked if the Planning Commission had the authority at this time to set the requirements of Sunline Transit or if it had to be left open ended where they had no idea what they would want done. Personally, his experience was at Indian Ridge Country Club. Sunline came in and asked for a full-blown turnout, shelter, electricity and everything which at the time Sunrise Company provided and built it and it sat there, and this was in 1992, and it was now the year 2000 and there was still no bus and eight years ago they were required at an expense of $60,000-$75,000 to put in that facility for a bus line that doesn't exist. Not to mention that it looks a little silly having a bus stop in front of their project and people standing there waiting eight years for the bus to show up. They would agree to the turnout and providing the electrical facilities for it, but as far as the shelter since there was no current bus route along there he didn't feel it was fair for the applicant 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 to provide a shelter at this time when they couldn't guarantee when there would be bus traffic there. Mr. Greenwood said he thought he misstated something and wanted to clarify it. In the case here where there was no current bus line, he didn't believe the applicant would be required to provide a shelter and that it would be Sunline's responsibility in the future. Mr. Levin asked if it would just be the turnout and a power stub for future use. Mr. Greenwood replied power and water. Mr. Levin said that with the agreement of the other changes that staff made in previous conditions tonight that were noted, they had no other comments and he was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Finerty said that by reducing the side yard setbacks to facilitate larger homes, she asked how much larger Mr. Levin anticipated the homes to be. Mr. Levin said that in terms of square footage, the homes had not been designed. They were trying to provide capability to put larger homes which would then be commensurate with whatever the market was requesting right now and what was going on in the neighborhoods, but he didn't have square footages at this point. There hadn't been any designs done. Commissioner Finerty reiterated that they had no idea as to the square footages of the homes. Mr. Levin said that would come to the commission at a future time. It was his understanding that when they come up with floor plans and elevations that those would go through the Architectural Review process for their approval. He asked Mr. Drell if that required Planning Commission approval. Mr. Drell said it would not come back before Planning Commission. It would be not unlike a custom lot subdivision like Bighorn or Summit where lots were 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 i created, perimeters were done, the infrastructure was done and then individual homes were approved through the architectural process. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Levin if he had any idea what the homes would sell for. Mr. Levin said that at this point in time they were looking at an average sales price in the mid $200,000 range, which meant that some would be less and some would be more. Commissioner Finerty asked if the average lot size was 9,695. Mr. Levin concurred. Commissioner Finerty asked how important detached accessory structures were. Mr. Levin said that again, they were just making provisions as to what the marketing studies said was wanted out there. As they looked around the desert, they saw more developments providing the detached units whether it was for an office or granny flats. It was a provision there so that if that was what the market wanted, they could accommodate the market and provide it. Commissioner Finerty asked if he knew that was inconsistent with the proposed amendment that was coming out of ZORC and Planning Commission, which was going before the City Council this month. That recommended that they not be allowed. Mr. Levin said he knew it had been in discussion, but wasn't aware that it was ready to go to council. The other thing was that as stated by staff, these would not be allowed along the perimeters, either on the public streets or adjacent to the park. Only within the interior and they were obligated to notify all respective buyers that there was a potential for these detached structures to be constructed within the development. Commissioner Finerty asked what the time table was for the homes. Mr. Levin deferred the question to the subdivider. 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 wow MR. DAN SHINE, representing American Beauty Development, stated that at this particular time they hadn't finalized any specific agreement with a local builder but they were in current negotiations and had been working with them and it was their belief, which they couldn't guarantee with any certainty because they hadn't concluded that and they weren't building the homes themselves, that they would see construction starting within the next 12 months or so. In the very near future. Commissioner Finerty asked how long it would be to completion. Mr. Shine said the project was designed for two product lines and depending upon market absorption, etc., and the ability to meet the construction he would anticipate a construction period of slightly over two years approximately. Again, it was his understanding and was not something that he could guarantee. Commissioner Finerty said give or take three years in total. two Mr. Shine and Mr. Levin concurred. Mr. Levin said that would be approximately 100 units per year. Mr. Shine thought that was a reasonable estimate given the current market conditions. Chairperson Beaty asked how many phases were planned. Mr. Shine said they planned four phases for each product line. The financing map was designed to try and accommodate that. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. JOHN YOUNG, 76-984 Sheffield Court, addressed the commission and said he was also the President of the Regency Estates Homeowners Association. As they bought their homes from approximately 1991 through 1995, the project next door was zoned R-1 12,000. The developer was obviously trying to change it. There had been so many numbers spit out tonight, some of which didn't make sense not the least of which was the traffic count in August which had to be the all time worst month. There was no traffic coming from Palm Valley or r.. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 Desert Falls now. There was future traffic coming from Cal State. Everyone running east would probably be running down to Gerald Ford and down the Tamarisk corridor, so he would expect to see the traffic count increase dramatically. He knew it did in the winter because he had to come out of their gate and that was without having an opposing gate across the street. Notwithstanding that fact also, it was relatively known in the area as the Tamarisk raceway. Traffic was exceedingly fast there and there was a somewhat blind corner coming around also as it comes around the back side of their project. A lot of care needed to be taken with that. There was an accident there a couple of days ago. It was a single car which ended up in a field which would be part of that project. He noted that this developer was obviously not the builder. They were obviously setting the project up to shop and sell. They got it at a good price and want to make the most amount of money. He didn't begrudge them that. He did begrudge them that it was known that the property was R-1 12,000 and they were trying to come up with different ways to pack a lot of houses on small lots so they could build more of them. The build out absorption rate of any of the projects was not anywhere near the numbers just quoted. If the commission looked at Palmyra and some of the other projects, they were not delivering that many homes. They also had density issues. The numbers quoted varied widely. There was one elementary school that would most like pick up that area, Carter School. It was currently ranked fourth in the county. They have been dropping temporaries there since the school was built. His understanding was that there was also a school site originally on the property which had been declined. The schools would be impacted by any extra homes built, especially family homes. The other elementary school in the area would be Gerald Ford which was also highly filled at this point. They had only one middle school which was stretched to capacity also. So all these numbers had to be taken into account. The 304 number which was the number given for the amount of homes built also included just taking out the park. No recreation or common area amenities. There was a mention from the Association of 8,000 square foot lots. That was a request for confirmation of a previous board approval. That letter was about a year old. There were some prior discussions. They had not heard back from the developer until just prior to the last meeting which was postponed to tonight. They also had a number of residents who had called and e-mailed him. A lot of them were just getting back from 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 vacation and had just opened up their mail and found out about tonight's meeting but couldn't make it tonight since it was the first day of school so there were a lot of people that were impacted by that. He thought they would have more and more people with concerns that would come to the commission periodically within the next couple of weeks unless a decision was made to hold them to the 12,000 square foot lots that were originally on the plan when they bought their properties. Chairperson Beaty asked what the average lot size was in Regency Estates. Mr. Young said they were a little over 14,000 square feet. That was the average. MRS. LESLIE TODD, 38-981 Palace Drive in Regency Estates, informed commission that she is the Vice President of the Homeowners Association. She agreed with everything Mr. Young said except the part about a somewhat blind alley. It was quite a blind curve on Tamarisk Row. She too purchased her home thinking that the zoning would be 12,000 square feet across the street from Regency Estates and she was devastated to get the letter saying that someone wanted to build something with only 8,000 square foot properties. Listening to building homes with five foot side yards was quite appalling to think that. In their neighborhood that was quite unacceptable. The comparisons that were made to other associations to other housing developments, for example, the lot sizes at Indian Ridge and the lot sizes at Palm Desert Resort, those were two developments that had condominiums and were not separate houses, so the lot sizes should be greater when they were building homes than condominiums. The traffic was a problem now without the development being there. The idea of putting in a gate across from their gate and then a second gate on Tamarisk Row would create all kinds of traffic problems. It was very difficult now to get out on Tamarisk Row as Mr. Young previously said. It was the racing cars as well as the number of cars which would increase. The two gates facing each other would create a problem because they wouldn't be facing each other like Palm Valley Country Club and Indian Ridge face each other with huge setbacks allowing for lots of cars and lots of turnouts. They would be directly on Tamarisk Row which would create a problem with turning in traffic and children 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 waiting for school buses. The development that was also mentioned was Desert Willow with its desert scape type landscaping. In their development and in the surrounding areas all the developments had lush green landscaping and not desert scape so it wouldn't be as compatible with the developments there now. She said she had some others issues that were addressed in a letter and was sure that the commission would get that information. MS. CANDACE JOHNSTON, 39-820 Regency Way, stated that she agreed with the two previous speakers. She also wanted to remind commission that just as a reminder, she remembered that in the 90's Equity Directions tried to get a change of zone on this parcel and she thought they were turned down. At the time she recalled that the city said that they were going to make sure that this stayed with the existing R-1 12,000 so historically this was attempted once and declined and she would like to cast her vote that it again be declined. MR. BUCK PRUETTE, 76-800 Lancelot Court in Regency Palms, stated that he wasn't initially sure whether he was for or against the proposal. He wanted to see the property developed and would love to see the park. The idea of having a school he would have embraced since he has two children. In sitting here tonight, it seemed like a big round peg trying to go into a small square hole. There were all sorts of things in the previous issues in terms of setbacks and trying to have carports. They talked about what buildings looked like on Hovley versus Fred Waring versus El Paseo and it was five feet and they would like to have it 15. It seemed like they were trying to make it fit and it wasn't supposed to fit there unless the commission granted all these variances and down sized them to 8,000 square feet or 8,400 square feet or 9,600 if they counted the park and that kind of thing. It seemed like it just didn't fit. The commission mentioned right at the beginning that they didn't like to have things dropped in their laps and there were all sorts of things coming in at the last minute back and forth. He didn't know how many different concerns there were and commented on the changed conditions. There were probably 18 different things and three quarters of them were different issues. Again, with the landscaping and the things they were talking about before, it was not what has been there and it seemed like they were trying to change it so that it would fit and he was now in agreement with the others and he was also on WJ 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 41M the Board of Directors there and with the ten people he had spoken within the last week that were against it. He now agreed with them for all sorts of different reasons. It seemed like it wasn't supposed to fit there and they were trying to make it fit. MR. KEN MAXWELL, 76-802 Ascot in Regency Palms, stated that he wanted to briefly say that he hoped the commission would consider all the things that had been said. The lots were too small. The houses were too many. MR. DAVE NICHOLSON, 76-820 Castle Court, said that he was in agreement with everything that everyone said prior to him. It was the beginning of September and there were still a lot of people away from their residences and they had three people out of town on his block alone that weren't back yet. They were told it would remain R-1 12,000. MR. RICH WARFIELD, 76-920 Sheffield Court and the Property %W Manager for Regency Estates Homeowners Association, stated that he was present at the first meeting when this development was originally proposed to their Board of Directors and one of the major concerns they had at that time was the alignment of the gates and traffic coming to and from. He suggested that the commission look into a study as to the distance from Country Club to the gates where these cars would be turning in and out of. He thought that was a major concern for their development and should also be looked at very seriously by the commission. The other issue was it being August and people were on vacation and so forth and he had received a number of phone calls from people out of town voicing their displeasure that this was taking place while they were away on vacation and now returning to start school and so forth. They were opposed and had some legitimate concerns over what the commission had seen in their letter and wanted to have those answered. Specifically the home sizes. They were concerned that this was just going to be mapped and sold without much concern about the neighborhood and they weren't sure this developer would be around to speak to when those concerns did arise. MR. GARY BROWN, 76-893 Coventry Circle, agreed with all that had been said. He wanted to mention that their lots were about 18,500 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 J square feet and at the time he bought his home in 1993 they were concerned about what would be developed across Tamarisk and they only bought in Regency because they felt assured by the action of the previous commission in not allowing a down sizing. MR. TIM GILBERT, 39-685 St. Michael Place in Regency Palms, agreed with everything that everyone said. He certainly didn't want to see any homes that were on 8,000 square foot lots. He was worried about his property values going down and didn't want to see traffic problems and had been in an accident. At 7:00 a.m. with the sun shining in the eyes, cars came barreling around that corner. It was bad enough right now. MR. BRUCE ROMAN, 39-847 Newcastle Drive in Regency Estates, supported his neighbors and agreed with everything they brought before the commission. He thought it was an act of the developer to down size lots to maximize profits. Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Levin would like to readdress the commission to rebut any of the comments. Mr. Levin said that he would respond to them. One of the overriding concerns expressed had dealt with traffic. That property would be developed whether it was developed as proposed tonight or developed otherwise. The configuration of those streets was not the fault of the developer. That was the way the streets were configured and they talked to staff and the sight lines had been reviewed by staff and were approved. The objection to the entry being directly across from the existing entry, if they offset those entries, they would exacerbate any traffic situation there. For example, there was Oasis Club Drive, Kansas Street and Hovley. That was what happened when they offset them. They started getting into more problems with people not looking at each other when making turns. Regarding traffic counts, if the project was developed completely at R-1 12,000 without the park, as staff stated it would be 304 units. They were proposing 270 and those were more than what was proposed. The project proposed a gated community whereby the entrances and exits along Tamarisk would only be for the residents so they would be limiting it to the number of people that live there. They could develop the property with all public streets and make them public accesses which would then change the traffic 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 configuration. The traffic as stated by staff and irrespective of the traffic counts, the amount of traffic developed by this low density project was not an impact on what the streets were designed to accommodate. With respect to the density, they had not changed the density of the project. The project was designated as residential low density. It stayed residential low density. If the park was deleted and was developed at R-1 12,000 for the entire site, they would get more houses then now so the density was not a factor. As far as the schools, the school district reviewed the project and they said they could accommodate it. Whether or not a school site came to fruition on this site was anyone's guess. The school district had been approached. Whether they come forward and picked a site and whether it's a middle school they had no control over. As far as the landscaping along the perimeter, Indian Ridge was designed with a drought tolerant, not a lush, landscaping. Regency Palms and Regency Estates were approved under the County and the County had different concepts as to what they wanted to see for perimeter landscaping. If they looked at the landscaping on both sides of Oasis Club Drive adjacent to Indian Ridge tow and the recently installed landscaping by the City adjacent to The Resorter that was the same type of landscaping that the city has shown they want to see. The city spent a lot of money taking down medians and taking out the turf and a lot of the landscaping and going with a drought tolerant landscaping. Those weren't really relevant arguments with respect to the project. The bottom line was the only issue that had really been presented tonight was the people's perception of 8,000 square foot lots and what that was going to do. All the other issues were a smoke screen which had been explained both by staff and himself. It didn't really come into account because when the property was developed, all those things were going to happen. This was probably as minimal as they could expect by gating the community, by reducing the number of lots because of the 32-acre park site rather than developing the entire project. The city couldn't dictate the size of the houses. They could build acre lots in there and build 1 ,500 square foot houses. They couldn't set the minimum that way. Just because of the size of the lot didn't necessarily predicate what the size of the house was. An 8,000 square foot lot was allowed a 25% lot coverage, which was 2,000 square feet. If they were allowed two story, they could build a 4,000 square foot house in there which was pretty much at the very top end of what Regency Estates had to offer. One of the 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 comments made was with respect to Indian Ridge being condominiums and that was only half true. Half the product was condominiums and currently Indian Ridge was selling single family lots. Those single family lots were 7,150 square feet and he didn't think that anyone could contend that the houses were tiny, underpriced or devaluing property. Again, the size of the lot didn't necessary predicate the product that was on it. He thanked the commission for its time. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was in opposition to the side yard setbacks to facilitate larger homes. She thought that if they wanted larger homes they needed larger lots. She also would be in opposition to the request for the detached accessory structures. She agreed with what ZORC and Planning Commission had approved as far as the ordinance and hoped it carried through to the city council. Not knowing the square footage yet knowing the approximate price was a bit confusing to her and she tended to agree with the gentleman that described it as putting a square peg into a round hole. She wanted a little more information and a little more of the product before she could move for approval. Commissioner Campbell stated that she didn't have any problems with the size of homes on those lots. The minimum would be 8,400 square feet with more of an average of 9,000+ square feet. She would not vote for the accessory buildings. As Commissioner Finerty stated before ZORC made an amendment to the code that was going to come before Planning Commission at the next meeting and going to council. Also, she had a question about having two story homes in the development. Chairperson Beaty noted for the record that Commissioners Jonathan and Lopez were not at the last meeting. Mr. Drell stated that there was no testimony and in fact it wasn't a legal hearing because there wasn't adequate noticing. Chairperson Beaty commented that he was just clarifying that for the record. Commissioner Jonathan said that the most intriguing feature of the application was the park. He doubted there was anyone in the desert that wanted the next park more than he did. However, he was persuaded by the comments of 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 two the existing neighbors and he thought they were in a situation that they were in a position where they as a city would be giving up too much in order to get that park. He was persuaded by the comments by the residents particularly with regard to the lot sizes, setbacks, the traffic issues relative to the flow, the gates, the acceleration and deceleration lanes which he thought could be accommodated, but the one thing that couldn't be mitigated without significantly altering the project was lot sizes and setbacks and once they got into 12,000 square foot lots, 14,000 and 16,000 then they weren't going to put a 1 ,500 square foot home on it. They were going to put larger homes there and he thought that just as importantly they were going to create some amenities such as open areas, green areas, tennis courts and they wouldn't have as much density. He understood and was persuaded by the comments of the residents in that regard. On that basis he would be opposed to the application. Commissioner Lopez tended to agree. He understood and listened to the residents in the nearby neighborhoods and if they really looked at the plot plan and at all those homes there in a relatively small area, it was very concerning. He felt the setbacks were a problem, the side yard setbacks, the size of the lots was a problem, he wasn't sure if there was a compromise between R-1 12,000 and something in between. Maybe 10,000 square foot lots. He didn't know but it was definitely concerning to him to look at that amount of traffic. Traffic was a problem and he had been on that road and it was an area where kids liked to "step on it". As they developed, they would have to take those situations in hand. The park was wonderful and he didn't know there was even a school considered for this area, but he knew that schools were an issue. It continued to be not only for the middle school, but even the high school. The high school now couldn't accommodate the students at present. There were issues, but the primary thing that he had difficulty dealing with was how much was there. He would deny the request. Chairperson Beaty said he was torn on this one also. He lived on a small lot by everyone else's standards in a 2,000 square foot home and didn't have any problem with his lot size. That didn't bother him tremendously. The traffic issue he thought the city engineer could design and if it needed a signal with opposing entrances that wasn't a problem. But he wasn't comfortable with the fact that staff and the city had been dealing with this for 15 months and they have a lot of people who weren't available to comment and they had a 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 new set of conditions and he was unhappy with current state and would be in favor of denial himself. He asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting, September 19, 2000. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF EL PASEO SQUARE (OFFICE MAX CENTER) - ALLEN SAPOSNIK, Applicant MR. ALAN SAPOSNIK addressed the commission. He stated that he was with Klaff Realty from Chicago, Illinois, so his address wouldn't mean as much as some of the local addresses. He said they were involved with the property known as El Paseo Square, which was bounded by El Paseo, Lupine, San Pablo and Highway 1 1 1 . They purchased the property back in the spring of this year and were involved in a partnership. They wanted to discuss some of their plans for the property to get some feedback from the commission. It was a preliminary discussion that they wanted to present to give the commission an idea of what some of their thoughts and ideas were and get their feedback and come back with a more formal presentation over the next couple of months. To give the commission some sense of the site from their perspective, they felt it had been under utilized. This was one of the oldest pieces of property on El Paseo that was developed in the early 70's about the time of city incorporation. Many of the buildings were still around from that date and they thought that it was time for them to be renovated and improved. At the same time they thought that the density of the site could be improved upon and the former owner was an offshore owner that owned it through a bank and had not spent much time or effort on the site. They were taking a look at the various opportunities they had. They purchased the site with the expectation that it had a cash flow income stream just like any real estate investment. It could stay the same way it was. At the same time they thought there were ways that they could improve it and improve the community and provide a more attractive property. They were looking at doing a couple of things. With the existing building on El Paseo, they wanted to refacade that structure entirely with what they called the service retail, which was the other building 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 i.. north of Office Max. They also wanted to put a less extravagant but more simple facade on that structure. At the corner of El Paseo and San Pablo where there was currently an octagon shaped building they would like to rip that down and put in a two-story structure on the corner with the first floor being a more significant structure and the second floor being a smaller 7,000 square foot floor plate, primarily for office use. They felt that the mass of that size would complement the existing Gardens development across the street from them and give the sense of the same mass. It would also allow them to put in a structure that would be appropriate for that significant corner in the community. They were also taking a look at Highway 111 and adding a smaller 6,000 or 7,000 square foot building and putting in some additional restaurant use on the site on the Highway 1 1 1 side where they were seeing an interest and demand for that. Obviously there wouldn't be any drive throughs because it wasn't permitted. One of the issues they spent quite a bit of time with city staff on and that they wanted to address tonight was the circulation and parking. Because clearly if they added more square footage parking became an issue. Quite a bit of the traffic from the El Paseo side of the project was parked on El Paseo. People who shopped on El Paseo tended to walk up and down the street and tended not to park in the parking lot. It was unusual for their site to have parking on site because as he walked up and down the street, most of the other businesses on El Paseo didn't physically have parking. Their back was the alley fronting other locations. They had looked on the El Paseo entrance and right now there was an entrance and exit off of El Paseo. Their intent was to make that a one way entrance only so that exiting went to the other streets, but not back onto El Paseo. He thought that traffic wise that would help. It would also allow it to become more of a pedestrian walkway than having cars going both ways. They had done a couple of parking studies on their site. The city did a parking study about a year ago and they themselves did another one back in May, so they got a little bit more traffic than in August, but not the same as during the season. The primary uses on the site were from Office Max, Coco's and the other tenants at the corner of El Paseo and San Pablo. He stated that frankly the parking lot was under utilized. There were rarely more than 20 customers at a time in Office Max, not that their business was poor, but a lot was from deliveries and people calling up and placing orders and getting deliveries to businesses so there wasn't a lot of traffic customers coming into the lot. In talking with Mr. Drell last week about use of Office Max, the property was owned by their entity but Office Max was a subtenant of Lucky Stores. There used to be a grocery store on that site and Lucky had another through various amendments two 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 ..J or various extension options under their lease another 19 years remaining under their lease obligations. He was reviewing the lease based on comments with Mr. Drell last week and the lease itself restricted the site so that a grocery store could not be placed back on that site during the term of the current Lucky's lease, which was a remaining 19 years. Lucky sublet the premises to Louis Straus and Mr. Straus sublet the property to Office Max. Because of Lucky's desire to not have competition for a grocery store on that site, they limited that to the remainder for the life of the lease to not have a grocery store, bakery or liquor store and things of that sort that would compete and potentially bring a higher density back to the site than an Office Max. He said his goal for the evening was to have his architect go into a little bit more detail on the site and get into some of the architectural features. He said that Klaff Realty had about 7 or 8 million square feet of property spread throughout the country from California to New York, Connecticut and down to Florida. Probably 20-25 different states. Their primary focus was buying property that they felt was under utilized, redeveloping it, improving it and making it a benefit to the community and then in this case more likely being a long term owner. In most cases it was a five-year hold which for real estate was probably more typical, but in this case would probably be a longer hold. They were intending to get feedback, come back in another six to eight weeks for a formal hearing and they also had meetings and would have meeting tomorrow with the redevelopment committee, with the city manager, with one of the council members, from a retail committee and they understood there were a lot of steps in the process and that it took a while. They wanted to introduce themselves to the community as well. He said that he would be meeting with general contractors because each market that they work in had different construction costs. He thought Chicago was expensive, but he was finding out that California was even more expensive than Chicago. Obviously they had some economic feasibility to work on with the project. He thanked the city staff for their help to date both with Mr. Drell, Ruth Ann Moore and the city manager. He thanked the commission for their time. He said their architect was John Vuksic from Prest Vuksic who has done some work in the city before. He understood he was also involved in some of the functions at the city. He said that Maggie Montez from CB Richard Ellis was their leasing agent for the property and she had been working both with the existing retailers in the property about their plans and logistics because it was a small site and they were trying to do an awful lot on the site. Also, she had met with the local businesses separate and apart from their own to build some support and then was meeting with the retail community in general to garner 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 some support. They were very sensitive to the issue of taking tenants from the rest of El Paseo and that wasn't their desire and they were committed to working to bring new retailers into the marketplace. One of the people from their office would be out here at the end of the month for the shopping center regional convention that takes place in Palm Springs early this year. The other gentleman in the audience left in the audience was Ellis Goodman, a major investor and partner in this transaction. He introduced John Vuksic, who would give a brief explanation of the plan. MR. JOHN VUKSIC, of Prest Vuksic Architects, addressed the commission and showed the commission the proposed design of the new buildings. He explained which buildings would be remodeled and how they would look. The southeast corner would have a new two story building as shown in the elevations. It would consist of retail on the lower level and offices on the upper level. To the north of Office Max would be more remodeled retail and the architectural style would mimic the south end design. On the north end of the property across from Coco's would be another restaurant building. Parking would be achieved by going to a tiered parking system. He showed the commission a section cut through the property running right through the middle of this tiered parking and all the way to Highway 1 1 1 . He showed the location of the tiered parking which would partly go under the new building to the south. He showed El Paseo and the new building on the south end and the existing level of the site and where the upper level of parking, instead of continuing the natural slope of the site, it would slope up slightly and that would be the upper level. Access would be from the lower level which would essentially be underground and continue under the building. That way they were confident they could accommodate an extremely low profile tiered parking system. Right now the slab was approximately nine and a half feet above the highway and then sloped to the natural level of the site. It was a very slight wedge shaped increase. They incorporated a number of features into the architecture that they were very pleased with. The building would actually step back on El Paseo. He showed the location of the curb and said that 15 feet back was the building facade, but then the second story actually stepped back another 15 feet so that it reduced the impact of that scale. The building included vaulted metal roofs and a fairly contemporary style they felt tied in nicely with The Gardens. It also worked with the Office Max which they wanted to be sensitive to as well. There was quite a range of colors. He described them as warm organic colors. The building would incorporate vining tow 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 plants on a trellis structure that was on the second floor. The various vaulted elements would carry through the remodel as well. Chairperson Beaty asked for questions or comments. Chairperson Beaty stated that he thought it looked wonderful. Commission concurred. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Vuksic what the parking count was on the expanded parking garage. Mr. Vuksic showed the lower level parking. Both would be two way. They were required based on the calculations to have a total of 248 spaces. They had 237, so they were 11 spaces short of the requirement. Mr. Drell said that wasn't absolutely correct. From a strict point of view, they needed 300 some spaces. Like Jensen's, to achieve a retail goal they made some allowances for parking. Here they looked at justification for two adjustments. One was the fact that a certain percentage of people going to this would hopefully be coming from The Gardens. They put in 200 extra spaces there specifically for this sort of thing. The other, which was somewhat more problematic, was Office Max. They knew that Office Max generated a fraction of a typical store that size in any other use. As long as Office Max or a similar use occupied that building, that number was probably adequate. They did have some concerns that while it might not be replaced by a supermarket, and hoped that Office Max was successful and continued to operate, it could be replaced by other uses that weren't supermarkets that would generate significantly more traffic than Office Max. Ultimately it would be weighing and balancing how much parking was practical and getting as close as they could to what they think the real demand would be while taking into account what they wanted to achieve in terms of retail development on the street. Ultimately, if there was a problem the impact would fall on this property. If there was a parking problem, then people would be directed to The Gardens where there were extra parking spaces. Again, it would be a balancing act ultimately when they saw the final design. Commissioner Lopez asked about the importance of the restaurant to the whole complex since it was sitting there all by itself across from Coco's along Highway 111 . He asked if it would architecturally mirror what was proposed for the other buildings. Mr. Vuksic concurred. He indicated that the building on the corner near the furniture store mirrored it also and thought it made perfect sense to tie into that. They certainly weren't interested in mimicking the Coco's design. Commissioner Lopez asked if it was going to be a full service restaurant. Mr. Saposnik said he wouldn't necessarily describe it as a WJ 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 fast food restaurant, but it might be a Panda Express or someone like that who had expressed interest in the location. It would be more of a quicker sit down, but wouldn't be a white tablecloth type restaurant. Chairperson Beaty said that they were still looking for an El Pollo Restaurant, although maybe not there. Mr. Drell said that they wanted to go there, but couldn't make the deal work. Mr. Saposnik said they had some restaurants that had talked to them, but they wanted 25 spaces per 1 ,000 and it didn't quite work in that location. Commissioner Campbell felt that on El Paseo they had adequate parking, it was just that people were not familiar with all the parking because it was behind the buildings and they really needed to have adequate signage that said "Free Parking". If it said "public" people thought they had to pay, but if it was free, then they would park there. Also, the parking at The Gardens was under utilized. Commissioner Jonathan said that he found the design wonderful and very appealing. It was badly needed. His concerns would be the office use. Historically that had been a challenge for the El Paseo area, particularly second story office use. Actually any where in the desert. People didn't come to the desert to go up to a second story in his opinion. They liked to drive up to an office. That way they felt they weren't in Orange County or L.A. He would hate to see vacant space on such a nice property. Potential use would be a restaurant because people would go to a second story for a restaurant. Mr. Drell said that they would run into a parking problem. Staff also thought that with a terrace that would be good use. But it would take another significantly greater parking stretch to justify. Commissioner Jonathan said it could also be a smaller footprint, but he wasn't there to solve the problem, he was there to give them some feedback, which is what they requested. That would be in issue in his mind. The two story element on the corner of San Pablo and El Paseo if it was done right he wouldn't have a problem with it. Again, it would be an issue if it was overbearing. He personally would have a problem with it. If it was tastefully done, discreet and subtle, gentle, and didn't over power pedestrians on El Paseo, then he would probably have no problem with it. But that was an issue. He didn't have to tell them about parking. They could talk to anyone in town to find out his position on parking. Parking was an issue. He has made many exceptions in terms of his personal vote, but he had to be persuaded. He didn't want to create a parking problem. If there was adequate parking and people would use it at The Gardens that was fine. But don't tell him about Office Max because next year Office Max could be gone and could `W 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 ' be replaced with a high intensity user coming to them saying that it wasn't their fault that Office Max didn't utilitize the space and then they would be stuck with a parking problem. Parking was always an issue. He would be open if there was an acceptable solution. He wanted to see this development happen, but parking was definitely an issue in his mind. Commissioner Campbell noted that a driveway was mentioned and cars wouldn't exit onto El Paseo. Mr. Drell said it would be an entrance off of El Paseo, but not an exit. Mr. Vuksic said it was an entrance only and in fact they meandered it just to insure that was very slow moving. Commissioner Campbell as a retailer wanted the traffic to come back onto El Paseo, not on San Pablo and Highway 1 1 1 or Lupine and leaving. They wanted them back in. Mr. Drell said she would rather have that as an exit than an entrance. Commissioner Campbell concurred. They could enter from San Pablo and Lupine, but at least they would have to exit on El Paseo so that they would stay shopping and not just leave. They would at least drive down the street. Mr. Saposnik said that they could also walk down the street from there. They had originally looked at a second story restaurant and their thought was that they would have people coming in off of El Paseo, drive to the back and make that the entrance for valet parking before going upstairs which worked really well from a circulation standpoint. With it being office, the need was lessened. From a retailer perspective, it was easier for him to go to existing retailers and say they could get into the lot, but getting out of the lot they might have to go a different way versus saying that they were cutting off one of their three entrances to the shopping center and that people would only be able to access the shopping center by two of the three entrances. That was just a harder sell for the existing retailers or for any new retailer. Commission indicated that it was a great start. Mr. Saposnik said that they would do some work and meet with a couple of other city departments and be back with an application. Action: None. B. DISCUSSION OF 1:1 SETBACK RATIO - Oral Report by Staff Mr. Smith advised that last week at ZORC they took the issue up again and felt that basically in 99% of the cases they obtain one to one. The one 56 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 `r example where they didn't, it was a result of street widening done without taking additional widening so they were left with zero parkway. They did get the 15 feet of building setback but they didn't get the typical 12 feet of parkway. So that was the exception to the rule. The other ones that they had before them tonight there was 28 feet from curb to the building and ZORC took the position that basically if it wasn't broke, don't fix it. They were coming back to present that to commission. Commissioner Jonathan asked where they would go from here if the Planning Commission respectfully disagreed with ZORC's perspective. Mr. Drell said that the Planning Commission could initiate amendments on their own. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they could do that tonight. Mr. Smith said that commission could direct staff to bring the matter to public hearing. Commissioner Jonathan said he would make that motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, directing staff to prepare a zoning ordinance amendment to initiate a 1 :1 %MW setback ratio. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (August 21 , 2000) Commissioner Finerty said there was a Project Area 4 meeting but the issues had already been covered earlier in the meeting. F. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) %1W 57 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 G. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (August 30, 2000) Mr. Smith said that they finished up with detached accessory buildings and that would be before commission on September 19. They discussed the 1 :1 ratio issue. They also discussed at length as a referral from Councilman Ferguson, who received a lettering requesting it, the merits of looking at drive through restaurants in the core part of town. ZORC rejected it very strongly. Lastly they looked at moveable copy signs which they had been discussing for several meetings and came to the conclusion that probably it was going to create more trouble than it would solve, so they directed staff to stop proceeding, although they still wished to hear from City Attorney Erwin on how they could define topics of general public interest. Mr. Erwin said that was a very, very difficult definition. XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Beaty said that he understood commission's and the city's concern with drive through restaurants, but having just come off of a week of barely being able to walk because he tore a muscle and sympathizing with those who really did have a problem getting around, he would like to see a way where they could have a drive through facility and eliminate the stereotype that he knew they were all concerned about because quite frankly, there were a lot of people in town who were injured and couldn't get around. They either had to go to a service to have meals delivered so he thought there was something there. His final comment was that he was very embarrassed by staff's presentation of the last public hearing item and he didn't know if it was Mr. Winklepleck's fault or what happened, but there were a lot of people sitting here and it was an embarrassment to him and to the city. Mr. Drell agreed. Commissioner Jonathan said that he would agree, but on the other hand that was the first one he could remember. On the plus side it rarely ever happened. Mr. Drell apologized and explained that basically the wrong document got into the report. Chairperson Beaty said that it made everyone look bad. 58 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 low XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, to adjourn the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m. PHILIP DRELL Secretary ATTEST: (T,k �' <IJ— PAUL R. BEATY, Chairper on Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 59