Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1107 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY NOVEMBER 7, 2000 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER r.. 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan 6W Members Absent: None Staff Present: Philip Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Request for consideration of the October 17, 2000 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the October 17, 2000 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Beaty abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent October 26, 2000 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. CHARLIE SWEET, 43-708 Virginia Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the commission regarding his non-hearing agenda item. He noted that since the last Planning Commission meeting, they took great heed to the comments made by the commission and their architect revised the plans and brought all buildings down to 24 feet. They had the architect reduce the size.of the main building by 4,000 square feet which availed them of the opportunity to add another 20 parking stalls on site. That boosted the overall percentage of on site parking to 65% on .that specific site with the balanee�lbeing covered parking contiguous.: He wanted to know if the commission wanted.to address this matter now or later on the agenda. Chairperson Beaty.said later. MR. BILL DEWS, 40-5.85 Meadow Lane in Palm Desert, stated.that he lives off of Hovley near Monterey and he received a notice to come torthe meeting this evening regarding one.tract, but he never received a notice forthe one being 9 built at the corner of..Monterey and Hovley, which was very ctbsee to his home. He thought it was funny that he received notice about oneitract,but not the other. Chairperson ., Beaty asked Mr. Drell to explain :tfW,:_Iegal notice requirements. Mr: Drell asked if Mr. Dews was within 300;fea.' Mr. Dews said no, but he wasn't. for the other tract either. His conoBf n -was that the noticing was inconsistent. If he was going to get noticed, hel,wanted it all the time. Mr. Drell explained that the law was that a property; owner was guaranteed to get notified if they own property within 300�,feet. Typically those five acre parcels were 330 feet wide, so if they werenth.the parcel right next to them, then-he was beyond the 300 feet. Mr. Debvs said he could possibly be within 300 feet of that one, but not to the one on the corner. He thanked staff. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't know flow long Mr. Dews had been a resident, but the public hearing process for that project occurred over a year and a half ago, so the public hearing process didn't occur recently although he was seeing construction now. Mr. Dews agreed that it had been going on a considerable time and wasn't against it. What bothered him was that he received a piece of mail on one and not the other. He was just concerned. He didn't think the notice was lost in the U.S. mail. MRS. JUDY ROGERS addressed the commission and explained that she would k also like to speak regarding Miscellaneous Item IX A. She said she could wait 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 it until it was brought up later on or she could speak now, whichever the commission preferred. Chairperson Beaty stated that the commission would rather address it later. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 00-18 - MESQUITE, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver merging lots 32 and 33 of Tract No. 25296-1 to accommodate a single-family residence. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. 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 Nos. GPA 00-6, C/Z 00-9, PP 00-21 - RICHARD M. HUGHES, Applicant Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Low-Density Residential (R-1) to District Commercial (PC-2) and a Precise Plan of Design for a mixed-use commercial complex including a 2,000 sq. ft. gas station/convenience store, 8,200 sq. ft. restaurant, 25,000 sq. ft. office/retail, and a 40- lane bowling center on 7.87 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue, more particularly described as APN 624-241-010 through -019; 624-160-003, -005, -012, and a portion of 624-160-002. Mr. Drell explained that the project involves development of what was now a driving range at the southwest corner of Sheryl and Cook Street. The project was associated with a nine-hole golf course to the west and a number of 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 , vacant single family lots on Sheryl. The proposal was a mixed use commercial retail office project with an entertainment component that included a gas station/convenience store at the corner, a restaurant on Cook Street, interior mixed office/retail buildings and a 40-lane bowling center. The property is currently zoned R-1 single family residential and it is a 7.87 acre parcel. Directly to the south of the property was a wedge shaped triangle that the applicant didn't own or control which was also subject to the general plan amendment and change of zone. The site plan also showed a gap on Sheryl occupied by a single family home. Although not part of the precise plan, it was also a part of the change of zone and general plan amendment. The change would be from R-1 single family residential to District Commercial PC- 2. He noted that there was a time 100 years ago when cities were developed where on every street corner there was a commercial development or basically neighborhoods were surrounded by arterials which were surrounded by commercial services and retail establishments. Over the last 40-50 years there was a reaction against what was happening in traditional cities and they got into very segregated large expansive single family zones and they were serviced by fairly distant commercial centers which they could only drive to in the old days. In the old days they had the corner store. The "mom and pop" traditional store was kind of gone, but it had been replaced by the convenience store. It provided that sort of convenience retail that the old corner store did in traditional cities. Over the last 10-15 years there had been a reexamination of those large expansive single use ways to arrange cities back to a realization that having convenient retail services and entertainment in proximity to residential districts could be both beneficial to the city in general and beneficial to the adjacent single family area in that it brought back convenient access. Children could get there on bicycles, people could walk and they wouldn't have to cross major arterials or drive through major intersections for service. In areas where it was appropriate and where designs were appropriate, there was a realization that commercial centers could be brought back into neighborhoods. This was what this proposal to a certain degree was. From a matter of land use and zoning given an appropriate design, this particular site was compatible with commercial uses. It had limited direct conflicts with the residential neighborhood to the northwest. It abutted the channel to the south, was on a major arterial, the use directly north was multifamily and it was not on a through street. It was staff's conclusion from a basic land use perspective that this is an appropriate site to consider for commercial use. Regarding the precise plan, the applicant was utilizing a reverse site plan for the gas station/convenience store. It faced the convenience store at the 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 low corner and put the canopies inside and not at the corner. It allowed the opportunity for extensive landscaping and screening of the gas station canopy. The other high intensity use was a restaurant which was also on Cook Street. As they go west and down Sheryl there would be less intense uses. The buildings on Sheryl were single story office buildings. In the center of the site was a mixed use, potentially a two-story office retail building and then toward the golf course and the golf course parking lot was the proposed bowling center. From a perspective of the basic standards of the PC-2 zone, the project was in compliance. In the staff report in terms of height there was some mention of the bowling alley being 33 feet. The architect could clarify this, but it was his understanding that if they looked at the section for the bowling center, 33 feet was measured from finished floor to the highest point of the roof. The building was sunk into the ground, so it had an equivalent height (relative to the grade) of 29 feet. That would put it into compliance with the 30-foot height limit for the PC-2 zone. As the project data section of the report indicated, the proposal was within compliance with all the specific standards of the zone. He said there were some anomalous features in the plan in that there were two parcels significantly impacted by the precise .. plan that were not included in it. The wedge-shaped parcel to the south was significantly elevated above Cook Street going down toward the wash and it would have a very difficult access other than through the subject property. It also had a sewer line going down the center of it which made development difficult. Logically it would not make any sense for it to remain R-1 since it would be isolated at the end of the channel by this commercial project. Logically it would have to be rezoned or redesignated as well. Although the commission had not yet been presented with conditions of approval since staff was ultimately recommending continuance, there would be a condition that the applicant agree to offer an easement through his project if and when his property were ever to develop provided that when it developed it would share in the common area development and maintenance costs since they would be using the facilities built by the applicant and benefiting significantly from this process. The other was the single family home on Sheryl. This was one of the oldest single family neighborhoods in the city. For whatever reason this was the only parcel in this length of street where someone built a home. The applicant in essence would be making the same offer to this proper owner. If and when it were to develop, it could be integrated into the project and receive an easement through the project. The resident of the home could continue to live in it if they wanted, but if some day they wanted to sell it and redevelop it as part of the center, they had that opportunity. The applicant would be 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 required to cooperate. When it went to ARC, there was an attempt to make the project as friendly to the continued residents as possible. Looking at the site plan, there were rather deep landscape areas on Sheryl on both sides. The development would be walled off of Sheryl and there would be no access on Sheryl to the west from the access to the gas station. The landscaping in front of the buildings and wall would be similar to that which would surround a residential project or a country club. The landscape theme would be similar to Desert Willow or other residential resorts in the city. With those two anomalies which would be conditioned as part of the precise plan and the general conclusion that the project as designed would provide a fresh new face to this neighborhood on Cook Street and provide a variety of convenience commercial services to the neighborhood plus to other residents and businesses on the Cook Street corridor with relatively insignificant impacts on that neighborhood, staff would be recommending approval. There were some unresolved issues. A traffic study was requested to more clearly assess the traffic impact on the neighborhood and the need for a signal at that intersection which had not been received. Staff wasn't in a position to finalize the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact without the traffic study so staff would be recommending continuance. He wanted to also discuss the issue of future development with the owners of all the out parcels as well. With those exceptions, staff felt the project was worthy of consideration. The applicant was committing to continue operation and maintenance of the golf course. With those unresolved issues, he said that concluded the staff report and asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan informed the commission that he had a potential conflict of interest and would be abstaining from discussion and voting. Chairperson Beaty noted that the commission would probably be continuing this item to a future date because the traffic study was not done, but wanted to give everyone an opportunity to speak this evening and opened the public hearing and asked the applicant if he wished to address the commission. MR. RICK HUGHES, the developer of the site, noted that he was before the commission about eight months ago to review the uses, zone change and neighborhood concerns. At that time they had a general overview of the development plan, the architectural concept and they wanted to test the waters to see what kind of a reception they might receive. Subsequent to that positive reception, they finalized the 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 process and were applying for approval. They did what they could to mitigate all issues as close to zero as possible. He said it wasn't possible in all cases. The short cutting on the traffic was an unresolved issue by argumentation alone and the traffic should probably provide a resolution to that argument. As far as the conditions and exceptions as outlined by Mr. Drell, they were in total concurrence in regards to making it easy for the people that were there to survive it with some type of an equity. They would like approval and to move onto City Council. He asked for questions. Commissioner Finerty asked what type of restaurant the applicant was anticipating. Mr. Hughes said if it was an ideal situation they would have a three- meal family restaurant that would fall into the category of a Coco's, Carrows, or Bakers Square. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION � to the proposal. MS. PATRICIA ROEDER, 42-671 Susan Circle, stated that she has rented for six years and owned for one. She said she had so many questions she would like answered or at least food for thought for people to think about. They as residents live there because that is what they can afford. She asked if this was the beginning of the end of their residential neighborhood for a commercial venture to get in the back door and keep pushing them out. She didn't think people realized that this was a quiet neighborhood. There were children, cul-de-sacs, swimming pools and it was a long standing neighborhood. Most houses were built in 1961 or newer. Most of them were in that vintage. They had school buses, special school buses that had to come in. They could not get in and out of their own neighborhood now because of the traffic on Cook Street. If they thought about it, they go from a traffic light at Fred Waring, to Hovley, Country Club and the freeway. Now they were looking at two more lights on Cook Street. This would bring yet another. She said that they were doubling the number of stops/starts with traffic lights. Furthermore, they already have a convenience store only a couple of blocks from them. They have several restaurants within walking distance. She said she had 50 years of bowling 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 experience in Michigan and not being able to amortize it without the addition of food and liquor. She pointed out that the golf course was a green space. They had lost the date palm groves to residential. Their green space was rapidly disappearing in this residential section that they still hang onto. They would lose more of it if this went in. The high school is opposite this development and wash. She asked if they had forgotten what had happened to the wash ten years ago. What happened to the commercial venture there now. She asked how stable this wash was that they proposed to build a 40 lane bowling alley on. That they proposed to put in underground fuel tanks on. She asked what this would do to the stability of this building site. She asked if there was a contamination issue. She asked about the water supply. The neighborhood had really turned around in the last three years. Regarding the criminal element. If they had to amortize 40 bowling lanes they might have to consider liquor and food to pay the bills. So they were reintroducing an element that they fought hard to clean up. The increased traffic was terrible. She couldn't imagine anyone going for this that lived there. They couldn't even get onto Cook Street from Sheryl now without nearly killing themselves. The access was terrible. She didn't understand. She asked if there was going to be one entrance from Cook Street into this or if there was also going to be one from Sheryl. She was concerned about two story height also. The high school wasn't two stories. It was a closed campus for a reason. To keep the kids in school and get them educated, not to be out in the neighborhood. They would be giving the kids very close access to leave a closed campus and lots of reasons to leave including food, recreation, entertainment, or the negative side she didn't want to get into. She said she was a school teacher for 13 years, so she knew what the other element was. She didn't teach any more for that reason. She didn't see it as being acceptable to them that live in the neighborhood. She said there were so many other things that she could also address. Once they were commercial, they would keep going that way. She pointed out Fred Waring as an example. They were pushing in the neighborhoods there, too. People were losing places to live. For them, they could possibly lose an affordable place to live. MR. DAVE HART, 74-657 Gary in Palm Desert, said he would continue with the list of questions, some of which they had already heard. His main question was one of the Planning Commission's vision which he 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 %W thought had been a good one in this valley. He asked if the request by Mr. Hughes was in keeping with the vision that they all share in Palm Desert. That was one of having a good, safe family community. He felt the Civic Center park was an outstanding example of the vision the city has. People could go there and enjoy it. His son really enjoyed the skate park over there and they have spent many hours there. The issue here was one the commission dealt with all the time and that was location, location, location. He asked where bowling alleys were located in this valley. He said that with all due respect to Indio and Cathedral City, those bowling alleys were located in areas that were troubled areas and not as aesthetically pleasing. Another question about location which had already been brought up was if they should place a bowling alley with a liquor license and video games next to a high school and within walking distance of the middle school. He asked if they should maintain residential zoning around schools. He felt that was in keeping with Palm Desert's family vision. His wife had been in touch with the high school principal and he hoped this evening that there would be some school board representatives present because he felt they really needed to know what is going on. When his wife spoke with the principal, he wasn't aware of this going on. He asked if they should place another convenience store next to a high school and family neighborhood. Already on Merle Street people tell him that it is occasionally littered with beer bottles and cans from the first convenient food mart there already. He asked if it was a good idea to increase the traffic flow down streets where mothers currently push babies in strollers and children ride their bikes, there are joggers and roller bladers that enjoy going down that street. He said it was paved within the last five years and thanked the city. He asked if it was a prudent idea to increase the traffic flow on an already busy Cook Street where high school students cross the street with only a painted cross walk for protection. This morning he was watching that cross walk and those students were really taking their lives into their hands to cross that street in the morning. No traffic lights were there and there were no crossing guards at this time. He asked if income level was a factor in this decision. When the people at Chaparral Country Club spoke against the proposed soft ball stadium, he believed the city listened. The soft ball stadium was now in Cathedral City, which was part of their vision. He didn't believe it was Palm Desert's. He asked if the Palm Desert government would listen to the people of a little neighborhood which 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 they were trying to redevelop and had been successful. Their neighborhood had aesthetically improved during the past three years. He reiterated that they wanted to make sure that all the people were represented and knew about it. He was talking about the school board and the schools which would be impacted by this. As they worked together to reach a decision about this issue, they should be true to the city's vision for a safe community that cares about people. They had done an excellent job on the commission. They developed with integrity and recommended that the commission make a decision that reflected that integrity, an integrity that placed the quality of the lives of its residents before the quality of a developer's life and pocket book. He said that his son couldn't be present tonight, but his children attended a meeting with Mr. Hughes and he never sent the letter to Mr. Hughes and was a fifth grader's point of view. "Dear Mr. Hughes: thank you for talking with us tonight. I am not a bowler but maybe I would bowl once in a while. How expensive would it be to bowl? I am still in favor of the project." Mr. Hart said he was opposed and thought his son's opinion had changed in the last year and they had been working on him. "I am interested in seeing what will go into the extra spaces that are now undecided. Maybe you could consider putting in a card shop. I like the idea of the kid's country club. Would it be affordable? Presently I earn $2.00 each week as an allowance. If you are going to have a kid's country club I think it should also include shops that would interest kids like a card shop." Mr. Hart wanted the commission to know that a year has gone by and his son was now into skate boards and he could do that for free at the park, so he thought his son was now opposed to this project like the rest of the family. His son said that, "if at least part of this is truly for kids, then you have my vote. Eric Hart." Mr. Hart said that the project didn't have his vote. MR. LEON BENNETT, 48-350 Crest View Drive in Palm Desert, said he was in favor of the project. He has been a commercial resident in the Cook Street area for almost 12 years. Classic Party Rentals formerly A Star Rents. He commended the council and commission on the great improvements on Cook Street. They were now able to get their trucks out onto Cook Street without jeopardizing their lives with the new light going in at 42nd and Green Way. He thought the council had made great progress. One thing they would never be able to do was decrease traffic on Cook Street now that there was an entrance at the freeway 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 and were building a university. So they would have to deal with the future and traffic as best they could. Currently they get their diesel fuel for their business at Deep Canyon and Highway 111 . Prior to that station they would go all the way down to Chevron. A station in this neighborhood would certainly be advantageous to their business and to many other businesses that have to get diesel. That would keep vehicles off the road, create less smog and a lot of other kinds of things. There were a lot of businesses he talked to that would be much in favor of a gas station in the neighborhood. Secondly, he wanted to talk about the bowling alley itself. Several years ago when the Marriott Vacation Resorts were proposing their project out on Frank Sinatra and one of the things he told council at that point was that as they get more and more vacation resorts, Intrawest and the Marriott, there would be more and more families here for a full week and the families could not golf all the time so the families that come to the valley would be looking for things to do. He thought it would be very advantageous for them to have a bowling alley in this vicinity in order to offer to the short time residents from outside the valley to here. He thought that Cook Street was becoming a real entry point to Palm Desert with the Cook Street entrance at the freeway. He knew that the roadway they were just completing now was helping to upgrade that and he thought this project would continue to upgrade the area tremendously and he knew that there was more work that needed to be done on some of the buildings on the west side near Joni, but this would be a good start to make this entrance to Palm Desert a much more beautiful entrance. MR. JIM SERVIN, a teacher at Palm Desert High School, stated that he has discussed this project at length with some government classes and there were a few students here that wanted to address the commission. He heard the universal lament that there was nothing to do and it seemed to him, and he has been a teacher there for eight years, that the city of Palm Desert has addressed the situation with things like the skate park, the Civic Center park and the soccer park. He felt this would just add to the value of the city for something for the teenagers and even young adults. He is a father of two kids that play youth soccer, baseball and basketball, and they were always looking for a community get together spot, dinners, and something to do. He thought this would be a perfect opportunity to help the city and the students and families in the area. He was in support and knew that 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 after talking to the high school students, they were very supportive of it and were looking for things to do. This would just add to those activities. MR. BILL BORDEN, 255 Via Picone said he had an office off of Merle Street. He concurred with the speaker before him. He thought this would be an addition to a great entry way to the city. Once they have some things built like the university and businesses leading off of the freeway. As they continue down Cook everything that keeps getting built will be a nice show case to the city and a wonderful sight to come into the city with. This site with the golf course and driving range has been a family entertainment center already. They really stressed junior golf and had a lot of junior programs there. Because it is a par three golf course, a very short one, they got both parents and children probably all the way down to the age of four playing this golf course. He had three kids age 13, 9 and 7. They enjoy playing golf. The bowling alley would be a wonderful addition as a family entertainment area. There were a lot of new communities that were putting bowling alleys in and they weren't going in on the outskirts any more. Bowling alleys had a tough time because they had to go where the land was cheap to pencil out. If they went to the city of Murrietta, there was a bowling alley there right next to a middle school, next to a commercial center, next to a large neighborhood. Bowling alleys, afternoons, weekends, with bumper bowling, strobe lights and lot of different colors which provided a lot of entertainment for children. It was clean entertainment and even though these bowling alleys would typically have a bar, it was separated and kept away from the children. There were two different elements. During the day there were families there and at night there might be a bar situation. There were things they could do to mitigate any ill effects of that. But the bowling alley would be a very nice alternative to the golf and they could end up spending a fair amount of the day there with the golf and bowling. He wasn't sure how many people were aware of this, but the owners of the site were a family that live here in the desert. The golf center was a family run business. Although there were no guarantees that whatever was built would be run as a family business, he knew that was the intent. They had a family in mind and had a lot of things that were good for the area in mind. The family members were involved in charities here in the community. They had done a lot of good work in the community and 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 tam wanted to see the community succeed and be good for a family environment. He didn't know them when they moved down here, but had come to know them very well. He wanted to be here to speak highly of them. MR. BILL BRUNSKILL, 76-430 Fairway Drive, said he was in favor of the project and would encourage the commission to approve the zone because when he travels Cook Street almost daily, he didn't think of it was residential, but commercial. They needed food and services on Cook Street. Bowling centers weren't seedy, smoky places like they used to be. They were family entertainment now and he thought it would be great for the kids and seniors and the people that could use the bowling facility. This would provide close to 100 jobs for the area and they had a lot of people that need jobs and he encouraged the commission to approve this project. MR. TOM CULINEN, 74-226 Desert Tenaha Trail in Indian Wells, said that up until a few months ago he would have given his Palm Desert rW address. He had been a resident of Palm Desert and Indian Wells for the last 15 years and had been fortunate to know the owners Ken and Sally Simons for the past nine. He found them to be really forward thinking proponents of this community. In the business dealings he has had with them he found them to be up front, fair and most importantly they did what they said. They were wonderful parents and grandparents and as one speaker already said, they were a wonderful asset to our community. He was a bowler, not a good one, but he did feel they had a real need for entertainment for their children. He has two young children and in the summer time they look around for things to do and there wasn't a whole lot to do. He thought their commitment to junior golf was unquestioned. They provided an access for a lot of young people to participate in the game, provided lessons and gave an outlet for those that didn't have access to country clubs and private communities. He encouraged the commission to approve the development proposal. He felt it was an asset to both the Cook Street business corridor and for families in both Palm Desert and surrounding communities. MR. ROBERT MEDLER, a senior at Palm Desert High School, 77-648 Marlo Court, stated that he was strongly in favor of this area being built 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 as proposed. Palm Desert had been designed as a resort community with golf courses and tennis clubs. He believed that the teen-aged group lacked things to do. They resulted to on Friday and Saturday nights going to parties which were always broken up by the police department and he felt that was a waste of the police department's time and money. Kids needed something to do. He participated in ASB at his school. He was also an athlete and in many different clubs. Not everyone was like him. Some kids didn't have the money to play in sports and had to go find jobs after school to support their families. He believed that this project with 100 jobs could help those kids out. The relative closeness to the school would give these kids an opportunity to find jobs much easier. He looked for three months for a summer job and ended up painting houses outside in the 120-degree heat. It wasn't a fun job. He agreed that the skate park was great but it only pertained to a certain group of kids. Mainly skaters. The movies were getting expensive. He also worked there two summers ago. The price for a ticket was $7.75 and popcorn and a drink is $6.25. That added up very quickly. The closest place to eat after school was Del Taco, which was recently built, and they were doing very well. He felt a restaurant in the proposed area would be helpful and would be very good for the community. Also with the work experience program at the high school with the jobs offered, this could help with that. The work experience program was great for kids that weren't athletic that needed extra classes and that needed the money. It was a good compromise the school district had come up with. He hoped the commission considered his views, which was the view of the students at Palm Desert High School, and asked the commission to vote in favor of the project. MR. DICK BAXLEY, 38-395 Nasturium in Palm Desert, said he wasn't speaking for or against the project. He was representing clients who own the parcel that was cut out of the rezoning. It was a vacant residentially zoned property. If this property were to be rezoned commercial and theirs was left out, it would never be used for anything. If that was approved, they would also like to apply, and at least retain some property value. Otherwise, no one would build a residential house next to a parking lot or bowling alley. MS. MOREEN HIEMSTRA, 74-862 Leslie, stated that most of the people talking didn't even live in their neighborhood. She has lived there 30 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 ro„ years. She asked if the commission knew what this project would do to a residential neighborhood. This project would be great up on Hovley. Some place where the industrial park is. They were residential and the property was zoned residential. It was true that kids need places to go and need jobs. The bowling alley would be a great place. But why in a residential neighborhood. She said that this was a land fill where the gas station was going and restaurant was going. It was all the original wash. They watched them fill it in a few years back. Land was sinking. They were building houses and the land was sinking. She asked what would happen on a land fill wash. It would do the same thing. This project would be great on Hovley. She said that as it is now, they put that entrance on Cook Street and no one would ever use it. Coming up from the wash, they couldn't make a left turn into it. Coming down the wash they would get rear ended going into it. Sheryl would be the only entrance. As it is now, they didn't know how many people come to their house and say, "where's the entrance to the bowling alley and how do we get in there?" They were going straight past the entrance through the whole neighborhood driving around and they had cars all over the place and they were right, there are a lot of children in this neighborhood. Mothers walking babies in their carriages. They don't have sidewalks so they walk in the street. This traffic was horrendous. They were suggesting putting a wall up. If anyone had been past the corner of Sheryl and Cook, there was a bakery there and a big dumpster there and all the trash was thrown on Sheryl Street. They threw stuff in the dumpster and it fell right over the wall. People were constantly going by, stopping, and throwing the trash back up over the dumpster. If they had a wall there, what good was it? Nothing much. She felt this was the worst place they could ever put this type of a project. The golf course was quiet and nice. It brought in traffic, but nothing like this would bring in. The people coming to the signal on Merle was one of the only main entrances in there. They could turn at the signal and still they came straight through the neighborhood. The school bus driver was standing with a stop sign and people were driving right past her. And this project wasn't even in yet. It was a beautiful project. She thought it was a fantastic project, but it didn't belong in a residential neighborhood no matter how they looked at it. There wasn't a correct access. It just didn't fit. They had Mamacita's up the street, Casey's, Harvey's across the street and there were plenty of places they could go get food. Anything they need. This project 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 would be great some place else. All the people talking didn't live in this neighborhood. They weren't even close to this neighborhood. Sure it would be great. What were the kids going to do that didn't want to go to school. They walked straight through this property every day. Lots of children did and it would just be a place to hide out. It was a beautiful project in the wrong location. It was a residential neighborhood and she felt it should stay residential and even through there were only 100-120 houses, they would get all the petitions the city wanted to keep it a residential zone. This project did not need to be in a residential neighborhood. MR. DOUG VELING, 72-395 Rolling Knoll in Palm Desert, stated that with all due respect to all the homeowners that live in that community, he has lived here since 1970 and has owned his own business since 1972. He had not known anybody that has been willing to go in and take that property up to now which seemed to be undevelopable, except the Simons who put in a green belt there with the possibility of improving the community. He said he came here originally tonight to support the project due to the retail space. As he heard both sides and looked at both sides, he thought the only way this would get improved, if the community improves with the access and the way they were growing, was to develop in a manner such as this. MR. STANLEY ASARO, 74-607 Gary in the neighborhood, stated that he was in support of the project. He was the only person that he knew of that lived in the neighborhood that went door to door talking to several other residents about this project. He hadn't seen anyone else doing that. He spent quite a long time going to several houses talking to a lot of people about this project. He could honestly say that more people supported it than were against it. He lives on Gary Avenue and has lived there 12 years. He wasn't sure what all of this hysterical traffic running down kids was about. He hadn't seen this in 12 years and wasn't sure what that was all about. Maybe he was back in too far on Gary. Of the people who did oppose the project, they had two main reasons. They were traffic and the criminal element. That neighborhood was a small quiet neighborhood for one reason. There was only one way in and out to the east. They couldn't go north, west or south. They either went in and out from the east or they didn't get in there. People that get back in there realize that and don't come back 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 to and try to drive there to somewhere else. If an issue was traffic, a couple of signs telling people not to go back in there should be installed. People using this project would just go back out on Cook and go home. There were a lot of businesses planned here too. He wasn't sure where all the criminal element was going to come from and all the kids that would be hanging out when there were all of these businesses in there. He wasn't sure how that computed and hadn't seen that happen. He felt this was a great project and great for the area. Gary Avenue had never looked better. One of the reasons was because the golf course went in. He was here when the golf course was being proposed and the commission heard all the same problems and same complaints about traffic, kids, crime, etc. None of that ever happened. He left his house for work reasons and went back east for 26 months. He tried to lease his house and the guy didn't work out and quit paying. For 16 months his house sat vacant on Gary and he didn't even lose a water hose from his backyard. No one tried to break in the house. Everyone said that the golf course would bring in all this criminal element and kids and they were terrorizing things and breaking things and he had never witnessed �r. that in 12 years. He felt the traffic was still pretty quiet. He didn't see where people coming in and out of this project would go up and down these neighborhoods. They might one time, but they wouldn't do it again because there was no way in and out. That was why it was a quiet neighborhood. Because there was no way to go in and out of it. That would still remain. If that was a concern, they should install some signs and have the developer propose a way to put up some signs that told people not to go back there. The criminal element was brought up. He wasn't sure what the plan was for police patrol or how that worked, but that could be increased and something done there because there wasn't a history of that and didn't see where this kind of a project would bring in something that wasn't already there. MR. BOB ARMOUR, 74-656 Gary, said that he has been there since 1966. His curiosity was whether there had been a report with no negative impact for this project and how that worked. If it was only within the 300-foot radius of this project or if it involved the whole neighborhood. Contrary to what the one gentleman said, he didn't know about the meeting and wasn't mailed anything. Everyone he talked to either didn't know about it or was not in favor of it. He just wondered if the whole neighborhood got to take part. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Mr. Drell said that they noticed 500 feet and went all the way down the golf course, so they didn't notice the entire neighborhood, but probably twice the normal area. Mr. Armour said his neighbor received one but he didn't and understood how that worked. He was familiar with that process. He asked if the neighborhood would be involved in the decision or if it was only those living within that radius. Mr. Drell explained that anyone interested could come to the hearing. The hearing was to take testimony and the traffic study would analyze impacts to the whole neighborhood, not just those within 300 feet. In terms of the traffic study, which was a potential major impact, it would be looking at it. He confirmed that there would be another meeting. MS. STEPHANIE WILLIS, 44-630 San Diego Avenue, stated that she was a senior at Palm Desert High School and she believed this was a very good proposal. There weren't very many activities in Palm Desert for kids to do except for going to movies or parties. She thought the bowling alley was a good possibility. She had been to both of the other bowling alleys and even though they were in maybe not so great parts of the neighborhood, she had never had any problems at them. She thought that one in Palm Desert would be a safe place especially since it was a public place. It wouldn't necessarily bring in a lot of violence to the area because it would be well lit. The problem of being close to the school she thought was a good thing. School started at 7:45 a.m. and the businesses wouldn't be open then. It was hard to get off of their school campus. The north end of the school was gated so they couldn't easily walk off the campus. They had to get an off campus pass and it wasn't that easy. Kids going there would be after school, which would be a good thing because they needed places to go to eat dinner if they were involved in after school activities. It would be a positive thing for kids for entertainment and jobs and would be something good for the community. MR. ALAN MASSEY, 74-773 Gary Avenue in Palm Desert, stated that he was very much in favor of this project. He was speaking as a resident of the area and lived four doors down Gary Avenue from Christian. He didn't recognize a traffic problem now or one resulting 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 taw from this project. He believed as Mr. Asaro stated that the setup of the neighborhood was such that there would not be additional traffic in the actual residential portion of the neighborhood. He was delighted with the idea of a recreation center including a bowling alley, restaurant and gas station all of which he would happily frequent. He believed it was the separation and mitigating plans keeping the commercial aspect on Cook Avenue and wouldn't have a negative impact on the residents. On the contrary, he felt it would be to their advantage. MS. JANET ASTON stated that she wasn't a resident of Palm Desert, but did frequent Palm Desert quite a bit. She lived at 73 Marbella in Rancho Mirage. She said she was speaking as a parent and child advocate. She saw this project very much as benefiting the widest range of people so she saw this as a very inclusive project and that was what she liked about it. One aspect was that one of her children had down syndrome and he was welcomed at the golf center in the most wonderful way. She believed that inclusion brought a quality to the community that one was really looking for in a small town that they couldn't really get because everyone was pocketed in their exclusive areas. Golf used to be one of those, although the element of being a gentleman's sport could benefit a lot of their children. This is what this project had already begun to do in including children in this gentleman's and gentlewoman's sport. The children could learn that degree of courtesy. Her son won a gold metal in the special olympics and that was his special talent, but she felt the inclusive element was wonderful because of the age range and ability range that would be made welcome at this community center. She felt it would be a wonderful thing for the community. MS. AMANDA LEVIN, a senior at Palm Desert High School, 44-557 San Pablo Avenue, stated that she has lived here about two years. She moved here from the mid west where recreation and a focus on youth recreation was a lot higher. She felt that Palm Desert needed to have a higher focus on youth recreation. A lot of people had worries about crime caused by youth in the community. A majority of people that live in Palm Desert are older and she didn't think the youth were appreciated as much as they could be. She thought that if they used this opportunity to try a recreational facility that they would have a great success with it. She thought a lot of the team sports and groups at the low 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 school could use this facility as a place to prove to the community that they are responsible and the facility could add fullness to the community. MS. CAROL CUNNINGHAM, 74-800 Sheryl in Palm Desert, which was a little condo complex right across the street from the proposed development. She said that she wouldn't tell the commission that she was in favor or against the project. When she first saw the possibilities and looked at some of the preliminary plans, she was all in favor of it. She did have two concerns though. One was the fact that she saw some two story buildings being proposed and in this little complex, they had only two stories. Most of the buildings were only one story. If they lost the view of the mountains, all they had left was the parking lot so it would be detrimental to the people along that side of Sheryl Avenue. Security was also a concern. They have a problem with kids jumping their fence and coming in and swimming or stealing things from cars. While it wasn't frequent, it was a concern. They had to hire a security firm to police the grounds three times a night. She wanted to be assured that if this project was approved, that there would be coverage for security. It was a real concern to her. When the kids jump the fence they go into the swimming pool. That was a concern for their safety. Some didn't mean any harm by it and she understood that, but they were responsible for the safety of the swimmers, but she didn't think they should be. The view and security were her concerns. MR. SID HIEMSTRA, 74-862 Leslie Avenue, informed commission that there were only two streets that led into this residential area. One was Merle and one was Sheryl. For this project the major street would have to be Sheryl because the ingress/egress they have on Cook Street was where it descended down into the wash. He couldn't see how they could put a project such as this in a residential area like theirs. He had his own residence and a rental. His daughter-in-law lived there and his daughter lived there and none of them were notified of this project. He was opposed to it. MR. HUGH HOARD stated that he didn't live in this area, but did work in the area. He lived at 123 Don Quixote. He listened to the people and heard their valid concerns, and he had complete faith in the city for traffic control. They had it almost whipped. He worked right off of 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 v Cook Street and what they had done was for the future. If they had 110 people living in that area, he thought there would be 110 votes no. That wasn't the case and he heard a "mixed bag." If they had 110 votes no, he thought their duty was still for the future of Palm Desert and this project would be hands down better and more serving for all the people. The lady that talked about the bakery and the trash coming over the fence. He worked in that building and they find the trash comes from that side of the fence to their side of the property because they had the commercial dumpster so they received their beds, their sofas, and they had to take them away. The traffic control was a main concern and he was sure the signal would solve that. He thought that the commission had a duty to the city and wanted them to keep up the good work. MR. TODD WHELCHEL, 74-659 Gary in Palm Desert, stated that he recently purchased a house on Gary four months ago for the fact that it is an older neighborhood. It was a quieter, established neighborhood. They have enjoyed living there and were currently improving their property and he had gone through this same scenario in another state and he was opposed to this project. The bowling alley that was built in a neighborhood near where he used to live basically had the police parked out front every night making sure that the kids weren't loitering and hanging out and causing problems. He had seen it. He agreed that this project was good for Palm Desert and he has three kids and they were always wanting something else to do, but this location was bad. MS. ETHEL BARKELEW, 74-800 Sheryl Avenue, stated that she was a resident of the condo complex. She said she was a former school teacher and loved kids. She also liked to see kids having things to do. One concern was that the restaurant and bowling alley would serve some kind of liquor. If this was designed for kids, she wasn't sure that was the greatest thing. As far as traffic was concerned, if people were there late at night, it was probably going to be a little different scene than normal traffic. She thought that police probably would have to park there at night. Their complex had to have police cars around it quite often. Along with some of the vandalism mentioned by Ms. Cunningham, something not mentioned was pool furniture thrown into the pool, drugs being done, the lights being removed off of the building and around the building so that no one could see who was in there 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 doing whatever they were doing. It turned out to be drugs. Some people were sleeping in the bathrooms because they were drugged out and didn't want to go home. Various things like that were going on and that was why they had to do the security thing. Things were better now, but she thought the security issue was important and issuing liquor licenses was something she didn't think the commission would want to do to encourage kids to do. She thought that teenagers especially had to have places they could go and have a good time and do a great thing. When she was a teenager she went to the bowling alley often and there were pool tables there too. She never had a problem with it and her parents didn't have a problem with it either. She could see where it was a wonderful idea. She understood at the time that the first plans had everything along Sheryl being professional buildings. She didn't know if that was still true or not and if they were professional buildings, they were going to be one-story. She could see if they were going to put in doctors or dentists or lawyers they would do their regular offices and would be gone during the night. They were also assured of plenty of parking within that complex so there wouldn't be a lot of parking on the street. She didn't know if that was still part of the plan or not. The other thing was the school bus. Because she is a former teacher, she had been very involved with the school bus. They pick up children on all four parts of their particular complex and those children have a lot of fun riding on the gates, climbing on the palm trees and doing all kinds of things before the bus arrives. She didn't know if they had driven in the area, but there were some quite tall palm trees at the corner of Sheryl and Clifford. That was a favorite thing to see who could climb the palm tree. They were little kids and all of a sudden she realized they had a problem because they were responsible for kids on their property. She called the school district and got them to change the bus and it took three or four times because they had two gates they could swing on. They had to get them away from the two gates, away from the palm trees and they were now on Merle. That seemed to be working okay. There were a few people there complaining a little bit about the bus arriving early disturbing their sleep, but basically it seemed to be working on Merle. As far as a lot of traffic, she has lived there 10 years and hadn't seen a lot of traffic. There was a group of kids waiting for the bus who used to play ball in the street and dared cars to come down the street on Clifford. That was the game. She supposed that everything had a solution to it. She 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 thought the residents at the condo would be a little upset with the two story structures looking right at them. She thought other things could have gone in there that would have been less helpful. Since it is residential, it possibly might end up with a whole bunch of apartments all of which would be two story and maybe more traffic coming and going all day and night. She could see where the traffic might subside toward evening with the proposed project, but those were her views. She felt that some of them were important. MR. BRUCE POYNTER, 73-390 Caliandra Street in Palm Desert, stated that he was one of the property owners of the associated property being talked about. Part of the original Jude E. Poynter Estate. The current piece of property was a bare dirt lot. He knew a number of times over the year he has been the one to clean the tumble weeds off of that lot and they have had a lot of weed abatement notices over the years and normally that lot wasn't a great asset in his opinion. There was an entertainment zone proposed for it. They had a safe, healthy place for seniors and children. One big plus was that there weren't any bighorn sheep or fringe-toed lizards on the property. They had a good community and it would benefit girl scouts, boy scouts, senior leagues, junior and senior golf. He said his uncle was very pro recreational facilities for young people and some of them may have known him. He was a big advocate of junior golf and he donated a large sum of money for the Jude E. Poynter Golf Museum at College of the Desert. They would both be proud to see this project go forward. MR. THOMAS MANDIC, 74-619 Gary Avenue in Palm Desert, stated he had some questions for Mr. Hughes. Originally when they met at the golf center there was going to be a day care center there. He didn't now if it was still planned. He informed commission that he has lived in that neighborhood approximately 30 years. None of them had seen the traffic that this would bring. He was against the project and Mr. Hughes was aware of that. Right now they didn't have the traffic. They had traffic in the mornings and for the golf center maybe 200 yards. People would hang a left off of Cook and Sheryl going to the golf center and come back out, but if he remembered right, one building was designed for day care and that would bring traffic in there between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on that one street. His question to him was how long the gas station would stay 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 open. Would it be a 24-hour station? Was the restaurant going to be 24 hours? He imagined the bowling alley would close around 2:00 a.m. Right now they didn't have any problems there but when they got out of the establishments, people would have a tendency to wander through the neighborhood. There were only two ways in and out. Sheryl and Merle. He also wondered if the city found out there was a traffic problem if they might need to make a cut from Rebecca up to the industrial park. He didn't know if that was an option, too, or what they might do in the future, but he wanted to put it on record that these were questions he had. He said it was a great project. For them living out there the gas station would be fantastic. It would be very convenient. But like the rest of his neighbors said, he didn't think it belonged in their neighborhood because they had been there since 1960. This would have a negative impact on their community. One speaker readdressed the commission and pointed out that when the condo project was proposed people were concerned about it being low income and bringing in seedy people. They have heard what kind of people it brought in and the positive thing it is. Chairperson Beaty asked the applicant if he had any rebuttal comments. Mr. Hughes thanked everyone for showing up, not just the people in support, but the ones that sincerely had negative input as well. He said that there were no two story buildings on the perimeter at all. It was designed primarily for the people in the condos. All the issues brought up he felt had been addressed. They couldn't create zero mitigation, but they could take it as low as possible and they tried to do that. He thought they had done a good job of that. Regarding the neighborhood, he had a list of 30 neighbors who signed a petition in support of the project that were unable or uncomfortable coming to any meetings and he wanted to submit that to the commission. With regard to all the issues addressed, they were more than willing to take the extra step to solve whatever issues there were and they were looking forward to a green light to proceed to council and thanked the commission for listening. Chairperson Beaty noted that one of the major issues brought up had to do with traffic impacts to the neighborhood and they would be receiving a traffic 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 study. He asked if the commission wished to make any comments before moving on. Commissioner Lopez informed the audience that the commission really appreciated everyone taking the time to come out and speak to them, especially on election night. The commission cherished and appreciated the input and as mentioned, this item would be continued and everyone was welcome to come back and speak again. Commissioner Finerty also stated that she appreciated everyone taking the time to come out and express their views. This was a really tough decision because there were two competing interests. Obviously the neighborhood concerns were valid and improving the neighborhood was also a valid concern. They would wait for the traffic study and review the testimony and she looked forward to seeing them again. Chairperson Beaty asked when staff expected to receive the traffic study. Mr. Drell said within a week, which is why staff was recommending a continuance to December 5, 2000. Chairperson Beaty left the public hearing open and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing Case Nos. GPA 00-6, C/Z 00-9 and PP 00-21 to December 5, 2000. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). Chairperson Beaty advised that this item would be readdressed on December 5. The traffic study would be available for everyone to review and he welcomed everyone to come back. He also suggested that they spread the word around the neighborhood. The commission wanted to hear from them also if they had something they wanted to tell the commission. B. Case No. CUP 00-15 - MIKE AND BRENDA SCARCELLA, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow an 1 ,800 square foot, 14 foot high, detached accessory building in the required rear yard of the property at 77-576 Delaware Place, APN 637-160-022. ■W 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Mr. Smith explained that the request was for a 2,100 square foot detached accessory structure in the rear yard of the property on the north side of Delaware. The property was just over one acre in area, around 45,000 square feet. Consequently, it qualified for the request before the commission this evening. He noted a change in condition number five of the draft resolution. It should reflect a rear setback of 20 feet, not 30 feet. The report says 20 and the condition needed to be consistent. The applicant proposed to construct this 1 ,800 square foot structure with 14 feet of height for part of it as the maximum height. The residence was 12 feet and the garage portion was 14 feet. He was looking at providing 15 feet from the west property line and 20 feet from the north or rear. Access was via a driveway along the west side of the lot to the south and east sides of the structure. The lot was developed with a large single family residence about two years ago. The rear portion of the lot was currently vacant. On the lot to the west, there was a similar large single family home with an existing very large accessory structure in the rear yard. Staff didn't have any plans so he couldn't confirm it, but it looked to be 30 feet of setback from the rear and east. He pointed out that Planning Commission received a letter from Mrs. Adams, a property owner on a lot to the north. Mr. Smith spoke to her last week before preparing the report and in the conversation Mrs. Adams indicated that she would request 30 feet of setback from the rear. In her letter she requested 40 feet. In talking with the applicant and in reviewing his grading plan, the area to the south and east of where he is proposing to put this structure was a retention area on his site. Moving this structure further to the south did have impacts on the rest of the site. Mr. Smith stated that the matter was a Class 3 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes and no further documentation was necessary. The plan before the commission was approved by the Architectural Review Commission. Basically staff felt given the constraints on the site, even though it was a large lot, it had constraints on it and the proposal with the 12 and 14 foot high structure more than met the setbacks prescribed for this type of structure. Consequently, staff was recommending approval subject to the conditions as amended. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MIKE and BRENDA SCARCELLA, 77-576 Delaware, addressed the commission. Mr. Scarcella thanked the staff for helping them with the process and he said they were available to answer any questions. Mrs. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 tam Scarcella informed commission that there was a garage next door to them that was 30 feet back from the property line 16 feet in height. When they came up with this design, they talked with staff to find out what the rear yard property setback was. In trying to be good neighbors they went an additional five feet. Like staff said, there were some property constraints. She stated that she also went to the houses to the north directly behind them and talked to those people that she could get hold of and left a plan with one of the gentlemen to see if they had any concerns. He endorsed it with no problem. The letter apparently the city got was from a resident that was to the north of the neighbor's house. The Scarcellas took some photos of where her house sits and if they moved their garage over 15 feet from the west property line which she believed was a condition of the resolution, it would not even fall behind her property whatsoever. In addition, there were several palm trees and some landscaping there that more or less blocked her view right now, but they did have photos if the commission wanted to see them. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION 6W to the proposal. MS. KATHLEEN THOMPSON, 77-583 Edinburgh Street, the property behind the resident with the proposal. She said her direct concern was that it would block her view. She was on the phone with her landlord Mary Adams this morning. Ms. Thompson told Mrs. Adams that she planned to come to the meeting. They have lived in that home for four and a half years and one of the reasons they chose to lease that property was for the view. They did a lot of entertaining and utilized the pool, spa, patio and barbeque area outside. The structure would directly conflict with their view of the mountains. Their property was also raised higher above their property. She felt it would obstruct their view and encroach on their right to enjoy it. Basically she had never received anything from the applicant. She had never spoken to the applicant, nor met them. Mrs. Adams indicated to her that she was completely opposed to this structure, at least this size of it. If there was a way to construct something on the property that wouldn't be obtrusive that would be another matter. As it stood now, it would directly conflict with her view and that was one of the primary reasons for buying the property, along with the neighborhood. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicants would like to address the commission. Mrs. Scarcella stated that as a good neighbor she did try to contact the people behind them. One of the residents lived in Oregon and his neighbor was going to contact him. The other one was apparently home when she was there. The gardeners were outside and said they were home and she knocked several times, but no one ever answered. She was sorry for not getting a hold of Ms. Thompson before the meeting. In trying to be good neighbors they were setting it back 20 feet. On their house it was only a 15-foot setback, so they were trying to do what they could and there were some constraints on their property because of the retention. Also, they did try to bring down the height of the structure below what was required, but they needed to accommodate a motor home in there. Mr. Scarcella said that the property they were talking about was already impacted by a structure to the west which was 16 feet tall and they purposely brought theirs down to 14 feet and after talking to staff about it, moved it over 15 feet and they couldn't move it over any more because it would impact their retention area which would cause them to have to regrade the whole yard. That would be cost prohibitive to continue to build a structure like this. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan said that it appeared to him that the application met the zoning requirements and that the applicant had gone beyond the requirements to mitigate any potential adverse consequences. Accordingly, he was in favor of approval. 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. 2024, approving CUP 00-15, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 C. Case No. TT 29692 - RINCON ENTERPRISES, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and tentative tract map to subdivide four parcels totaling 2.72 acres into nine single-family lots, located on the east side of Portola Avenue, 300 feet south of Fairway Drive. Mr. Alvarez stated that the staff report outlined the essential points. He noted that the site consisted of four parcels totaling 2.72 acres. The lots were located on the east side of Portola approximately 300 feet south of Fairway Drive. The property was zoned R-1 10,000 square feet. The property was currently vacant but previously had a single family residence which was demolished. To the east, south and north, surrounding properties were zoned single family residential. To the west across the street was a multifamily project. As mentioned, the property was proposed to be subdivided from 2.72 acres to 9 single family lots, each of which would exceed the minimum 10,000 square foot lot size requirement. Maximum lot size was 13,609 and the average lot size was 11 ,257 square feet. He said -that on page 2, minimum lot width should be 70 feet, not 90 as typed. The project density was 3.3 acres. The general plan designation called for medium density residential which would allow up to seven units per acre. He pointed out that the applicant intended to develop the property into an Italian country site architectural theme. The homes would be custom and each home would be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. A brochure was included with the commission's staff report. ARC reviewed both the perimeter landscaping and the entry monument tower which was illustrated on the colored elevation to the left. As shown, the tower had some Italian countryside elements with stone veneer and tile and the stucco finishes. The tower was 17 feet high. The setback was 40 feet from Portola Avenue and on September 13 ARC voted 5-1-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet dissenting and Commissioner Lingle abstaining to approve the preliminary design. This design was modified from previous submittals and now included a wider base, it was lowered one foot and some architectural details were added. Perimeter landscaping received conceptual approval. Staff worked with the applicant and ARC to come up with a solution in concept that would both fit in with this architectural theme the applicant was trying to achieve and also meet the city's landscaping design criteria goals to in essence achieve a compatible desert type plant palette and more lush entry statement for the site that would both tie into the theme and be compatible with the city's landscaping goals. r.. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Staff felt the project was compatible at this location. Condition number seven required that overhead utilities be undergrounded. These utilities serve the adjacent properties to the south and north and the applicant would be addressing this issue further. Staff reviewed the project for compliance with CEQA and determined that the project would not have a significant negative impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration had been prepared. He believed that the findings for approval for the tentative tract map as outlined on page four could be met. He recommended approval subject to the conditions. Commissioner Finerty asked what Commissioner Van Vliet's reason was for dissenting. Mr. Alvarez indicated that Commissioner Van Vliet felt the 17-foot height was not appropriate. The maximum height in this district is 18 feet. Commissioner Finerty asked if Commissioner Van Vliet had any comments about the cypress trees. Mr. Alvarez said no. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. STEVE JONES representing Rincon Enterprises stated that they were a small LLC composed of himself and a gentleman named Howard Lloyd. They formed.the LLC specifically to develop this piece of land they acquired a little.over a year and a half ago. They spent some time agonizing over the last year and a half exactly how they wanted to develop what they felt was a special piece of property. After consulting and going back and forth with several meetings with the planning staff, who had been most courteous and helpful and well represents the city, they decided that a small custom home situation was very appropriate here. He said that it was hard to go upscale in this neighborhood any more with everything going on up and down the street. They decided on a gated entry which they oriented directly across from Flagstone Lane which currently ran west off of Portola. Their gated entry was upscale and suggestive of Italian hillside architecture which was the theme for the homes. Each home would be individually designed so they would have nine unique homes in this location. They were a small LLC and they had financing in place to move ahead with this project. However, as they looked at the conditions of approval on page five, condition number nine of Public Works requiring them to go underground with existing utilities was going to impose a hardship on 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 %low their project. They certainly intended to go underground with their utilities and there was an Edison vault just off the northwest corner of their property that they were able to utilize for their underground utilities. There were two existing poles on the north side of the property and two poles on the south side of the property which did not serve their property. The poles were serving the three homes on the north and the three homes on the south. He wasn't sure the poles were even on his property, but he had to check into that. He did know that checking with Edison early on they indicated that they would be spending easily over $25,000 a pole to go underground, so if they had to come up with another $100,000 beyond their current budget for this project, it put it in jeopardy. He didn't know if they could go forward if they had to underground those poles on the north and south sides. Otherwise, he felt they addressed the other concerns of planning and hoped that the Planning Commission would waive off this particular condition. Chairperson Beaty asked what the anticipated lot prices would average. k f 6W Mr. Jones said they expected to be within the neighborhood of $160,000 to $175,000 on their lots. Construction prices would vary and they expected most of the homes to be purchased before they start construction. They expected it to be a very custom situation. He didn't know if he could place a value on the homes, but he would suggest that a cost per foot would certainly exceed $160-$170 a foot. Chairperson Beaty indicated he was talking about a $500,000 investment. Mr. Jones thought the home prices would be in the neighborhood of $450,000 to $500,000. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there has been a sign on the property for quite a while regarding the precise plan and even had some sold signs on some of the parcels. He was curious how he was able to do that before getting the parcel map approved. Mr. Jones said that "sold" was probably not a good choice of words, but it translated to "reserved". They had not actually made any sales 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 of course, but they did have those firm commitments to buy once they were able to release lots. Commissioner Jonathan indicated they were talking about an undergrounding cost of $100,000. If that were to be split over nine lots that would be an increase of $1 1 ,000 per lot or a six percent increase per lot. Mr. Jones said yes, but didn't think that addressed the cost of the homes tying in. Mr. Drell explained that in this sort of situation, the property owner wasn't liable for the undergrounding costs of the houses being served by those poles. The city would have to pick up that cost. Commissioner Jonathan said they were talking about the existing poles that were on the property. Mr. Drell indicated that the present overhead lines were to the adjacent homes which would also have to be undergrounded, but in those cases the applicant would not be liable for the cost to underground on other people's property. That would be the city's cost if they insisted on the undergrounding. Chairperson Beaty asked what that would run per resident. Mr. Drell guessed $4,000 to $5,000. They actually did that with the office building at El Paseo and Highway 111 . They undergrounded some lines going north. That line fed some apartments and office buildings to the east and the city spent $30,000- $40,000 undergrounding those lines. Commissioner Campbell asked if they were sure these poles were on Mr. Jones' property or not. Mr. Drell said that typically the poles were right on the property line in the middle of an easement which was shared by both adjacent parcels. They weren't exactly sure in this case. It was a little bit unusual where they were talking about undergrounding lines that didn't actually serve this property. The undergrounding would be to the benefit of the adjacent single family residents. Commissioner Campbell couldn't see why he would be liable for them. Mr. Drell indicated that was what the ordinance said. There was provision in the code to temporarily waive the condition and having them participate in any district that was formed in which everyone would then pay their fair share. In this case at the very worst they would split the cost with the adjacent neighbors if in fact there was a district formed to underground those lines. Part of the problem was that they couldn't just underground the poles on this property. They had to underground to the next pole. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Mr. Jones said it was about another 50 yards each way. Mr. Drell said that on a small project, often they ended up undergrounding twice the distance of their own frontage. In some of these isolated situations, they deferred to a future assessment district. Commissioner Jonathan said he couldn't imagine $500,000 homes or more were going to want these poles in their back yards. He asked if Mr. Jones had addressed that in terms of their design and how he wished to proceed. He couldn't imagine that Mr. Jones would want these poles in this development. Mr. Jones said they planned some perimeter landscaping (small acacias) that would grow up to 15 to 18 feet that would basically disguise the entire perimeter, all of the north, south and east sides of the property in addition to the wall they were planning to put in. The homes they were creating would be inward looking homes. The garages would be in the backs of the homes so they had an orientation toward the interior/center of the homes which he thought addressed that. r✓ Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. SYLVIA THOMPSON, 74-080 Covered Wagon Trail, explained that their property was east of the proposed project. She was concerned about the garages in the back area. Their garages would go back against their fence and she was concerned about the lighting and light pollution in their backyard and into their bedroom. She wanted to know the height of the fence and the type of fence it would be. She was assuming that three of those lots would be against their property. She was also concerned about the height of the ground. She didn't know if their ground was going to be three feet higher than their lots so that they would be looking down at them and the building or if they would be two stories or single story. Mr. Jones said that they had a perimeter block wall they were putting in. That block wall would generally be six feet high off the adjoining properties. In addition to that the exterior face of the block wall would be a decorative face. They hadn't determined yet if that would be a split face block or slump block to the exterior and would be tan in color. 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 In addition to that, they would have a perimeter of acacia trees that would take in some space from the block wall going on up to around 15-18 feet high. They thought that would present an effective screen to the neighbors. Right now on the east, the neighbors west, there was a wooden fence in some disrepair and this would take the place of that and they would front the cost for the wall. The height of the wall would be six feet off of their property. In their northeast corner they would be coming up about two feet off the existing grade in order to achieve positive drainage back to their street. That would put the wall about four feet higher than his property, but would be a six-foot high wall for the neighbors. That was to achieve drainage. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the grade differential was between the proposed homes and the existing homes. Mr. Jones said that was the greatest differential. As they went along the south side of the property, they were generally at an even grade to what was currently there. As they came down the east side starting at the south end they were at even grade until they got to about the center of the property. At that point they started picking up a little height until they reached approximately two feet in height in the northeast corner. As they went toward Portola, that grade came back up until they were at even grade again. They tried to lower their street as they come off of Portola turning into their cul-de-sac; they tried to lower the street as much as possible to keep that corner as low as possible. They had been working with Public Works to achieve a proper balance here. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the homes would all be setback from the perimeter. Mr. Jones said they had a 20-foot setback restriction in their conditions and single story, maximum 18 feet high. He suggested that they might come close to that in a few places, but generally they would be lower in the Italian country side theme. Chairperson Beaty noted that Ms. Thompson asked about light pollution from the garage or driveway lighting. 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Mr. Jones said they didn't anticipate any bright lights. They would be putting in some landscape lighting which were typically up lights on trees and some shrubbery, but they didn't anticipate any flood type lighting and he thought the block wall would take care of any problems which might present themselves with headlights as cars enter their garages. Commissioner Campbell asked if the setback from the garages to the rear wall was also 20 feet. Mr. Jones said it would be greater than 20 feet. They needed to achieve more like 30-35 feet off of the back walls in order to achieve a decent turning radius coming into the garages. They would be at a greater setback. Chairperson Beaty asked about the lot on the northeast corner. The person building a new home on that lot would have a four foot high wall which they could easily look over into the neighboring back yard. Mr. Jones said that would be the case if it wasn't for their landscaping screening. He said they would be happy to raise that wall up higher. Chairperson Beaty said if they raised it to six feet that would make it an eight foot wall to the neighbor. Mr. Jones said that if the Thompsons were agreeable to a higher wall, they were certainly agreeable to making it higher. He didn't expect them to want more than a six-foot high wall. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Jones would be opposed to considering an Arizona cypress since it is a drought tolerant tree which belongs to the desert as opposed to the proposed type of cypress. Mr. Jones said he wasn't familiar with the Arizona cypress. He asked if it was a column type of cypress. Commissioner Finerty suggested that Mr. Jones speak with Spencer Knight. 40W 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Mr. Jones said that he has visited with him. They took away a number of cypresses that were originally on the plan and were only using them now behind their right-of-way just as a corridor coming into their gate. They were really setback from the street and were meant to be evocative of the tree found in the Italian hillside. Commissioner Finerty felt that they didn't belong in the desert. Mr. Jones said that they grow very well and had been out here for many years. Commissioner Finerty said the other concern she had was the 17-foot high tower. She wasn't sure it was appropriate, especially at that height. She was wondering if he would have any objection to visiting with the Art in Public Places committee to see what they might be able to do with the tower to maybe help it fit into the project and perhaps they might have some suggestions with reducing the height. Mr. Jones said the tower wasn't much of a tower at 17 feet. It was setback back over 40 feet from the street. Houses on either side of the entry could be taller than that and he suggested that as they drive along Portola as this project is built out, it really wouldn't be sticking up any more than the houses on either side of it. It would present pretty much a uniform scene and at 17 feet would certainly have trees much higher that would buffer that and mitigate any sense of height there. Commissioner Finerty asked if she was to understand from his answer that he would not like to visit with AIPP. Mr. Jones pointed out that he has gone through several sessions with the Architectural Review Commission and they seemed well satisfied with some of the things in the project used to improve the architecture. He felt it was better than just simply a few gates coming in there. They were trying to create a more meaningful entry and he felt that had been accomplished. He said they would like to get a credit in Art in Public Places for this effort. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for comments or action. 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Commissioner Jonathan asked what staff's take was on Community Development condition number seven. He asked if staff wanted it to remain the same or if they were suggesting joining an assessment district in place of condition seven. Mr. Drell noted that it was also condition number nine in Public Works. He had no problem with leaving it up to the discretion of the City Engineer based on seeing all the costs involved and determining whether they were a burden or not. At this point in time it was hard to tell. Commissioner Jonathan said he would be comfortable with that because he suspected that the applicant, once he reviewed that situation, might want to find a way to eliminate those poles that were not too sightly, so if they left it in staff's capable hands, then maybe something could be worked out. Mr. Drell said that they could basically add an "or" as identified in Section 25.56.120 to join an assessment district, if deemed to be economically unfeasible. Chairperson Beaty said he was also in favor of leaving that condition in and hoping that it could be worked out. They would love to underground everything in the desert and sometimes it was cost prohibitive, but this looked like an opportunity to get something done and he would be strongly in favor and would encourage the city to help them accomplish that goal and talk to the other residents. He used to live in the old part of the city and he would have loved to have gotten rid of those poles. They were right in the way of the mountain view. Mr. Drell indicated that there was also discussion, but it hadn't received final approval by the council, of a program in which the city would pay half the cost and create an assessment district. In essence finance the improvement so that might make the cost benefit analysis a little brighter to the applicant in terms of removing the unsightly poles. Chairperson Beaty asked how that should be incorporated into the conditions. Mr. Drell said that in essence they could add the option of the applicant taking advantage of the undergrounding district. Commissioner Campbell felt that the project would be an asset to the community with those types of homes in that area close to El Paseo. Regarding the tower height, she had no problem with the height of the tower and she noted that it had been approved by ARC and was 40 feet from Portola. As far as the cypress trees were concerned, they would grow higher than the tower so it would be well camouflaged going north or south. She was in favor of the project. 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Chairperson Beaty said he would like to see some language firming up the wall issue with the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Drell said that in essence they could require, with the consent of the neighbor, that the wall be six feet as measured from the higher side. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant had any problem with that and he indicated no. Mr. Drell said that the wall could be designed so that it wasn't so oppressive. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025, approving TT 29692, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. TT 29893 - KRISCO INC., Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and tentative tract map to subdivide 4.75 acres into 20 single-family lots, located on the north side of Hovley Lane West, 1 ,000 feet east of Monterey Avenue. Mr. Alvarez pointed out that this was one of the few remaining 4.75 acre lots along Hovley Lane West. Up and down the street there were single family tracts mirroring this similar design with the single cul-de-sac leading to Hovley Lane West. This particular piece was between two existing or approved tracts. One to the west which was Meadow Lane which currently had single family residences on it and one which was a formerly approved and recorded tract map which was identified as Bald Eagle Lane. Eventually there would be single family homes on this site, too. The area being discussed tonight was 4.75 acres and consisted of 20 single family lots. Lot sizes all exceeded the 8,000 square foot minimum. Lot widths mirrored the adjacent properties which were 60 feet. In terms of lot sizes, the minimum is 8,000 and the maximum is 9,457 with an average of 8,549. Pad height was brought up by a couple of the adjacent property owners, as well as lot widths and side yard setbacks. Pad heights were identified on the tract map as something they would work on with the Engineering Department to try and achieve a balance between the existing residences to the west and to the east, potentially an 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 OEM average height to be set based on those two existing pad heights on the adjacent properties. To the north the Engineering Department would basically limit the height of those two lots on the north side to not exceed more than 18 inches above the properties to the north, the Sagewood development. It was not completely identified in the conditions, but staff could address that if the commission wished to. The lot widths would mirror the adjacent properties at 60 feet wide. The setbacks required in this zone called for a minimum of ten feet of separation between buildings. The properties to the east and west also mirrored the setbacks which were five and five, single story homes to the west and there was still a vacant tract to the east. This project would conform to these standards and the setbacks were outlined on page three. Front 20 feet, rear 15 feet and 10 feet combined minimum between buildings. The single family homes were reviewed by ARC and they had an application which would be before ARC next Tuesday and they had shown setbacks ranging a combined total of 12, single story 18 feet maximum height. In terms of perimeter walls, the project would utilize the existing perimeter wall to the west, a portion of the existing wall to the north, and the remainder would also be six feet. The landscaping plan had been reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission. It was consistent and compatible with the area and with the city's design guidelines. This was another infill single family project which staff felt was compatible with the location. It met all the requirements of the district. The density was 4.3 units per acre and the project designation in the general plan would allow five units per acre. The findings for approval could be met. For purposes of CEQA, the project would not have a significant negative impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared. He noted that a letter was received on Monday from the property owners to the north, Mr. and Mrs. Beardsley. Staff felt that the issues had been addressed. He recommended approval of the project, subject to the attached conditions. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOHN HACKER, 40960 Avenida Rosario in Palm Desert, stated that he was the engineer of record on the adjacent subdivision and it had gone into escrow and was supposed to close this week. He felt this would finish up the area and get the streets finished. As a resident in the area he felt it would be a big improvement. The developer of this property builds a very substantial house. He was also doing the one on `.. 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 the corner and he would be doing the same type of homes here. One problem they had with this one and some costs that were involved was the necessity of relocating the sewer line that was along the west side of the property in to the center of the street, which was an additional cost. It was an existing ten inch. And then there was a storm drain that would be put in along the east side of the property. There was a large storm drain that the city had been wanting in for a long time, so there were some expenses on this one. He thought it would solve a lot of problems in the neighborhood as far as the roadway. They were setting the pads an average height between the subdivision to the west and the subdivision to the east, so there was a compromise in the elevation. They would keep the lots at the end of the cul-de-sac at the same elevation as the property to the north. Chairperson Beaty asked if the lot sizes on this project were the same as the projects to the east and west. Mr. Hacker concurred. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. BILL BEARDSLEY, 40-176 Nolina Court in Sagewood, said that he and his wife lived at lot 62 on the north side of the proposed project. When they bought their property they had a wonderful view of the mountain and knew full well it would disappear. They were not fighting I this project in any way, shape or form, but they did have a couple of concerns. One was the one and a half foot elevation difference between their yard and the yards immediately south of them. Their present wall was six feet high. If they had a problem with the one and' a half foot elevation difference that meant they would end up with a seven and a half foot wall between them and the units to the south. However, Mr. Gaugush from the Engineering Department did draw out a possible plan for them that could happen where the center of the lot was one and a half feet above them. However, the slope would be down to the base of their existing block wall, which would be fine with them. They would just hate to see another 18 inches added to their wall. He didn't know if it was open for discussion between themselves and the project manager or not. That was their main concern. One item he and his wife addressed to Mr. Alvarez was the concern over the water table and the sinking of the land in their area which has been 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 identified by the U.S. Geological Survey. The answer which came back said that the Water District could continue to supply them with plenty of water, which didn't really address the fact that they were in an area that was sinking and might not be stabilized for another ten years until these people gave them water to recharge their table. That was another item of concern with the amount of building going on. They weren't fighting it. They just wanted to bring these up as items of concern. MR. BILL DEWS, a resident of Meadow Lane, said he was looking at the vegetation there. He asked who would take care of the watering and the trimming of those bushes. He asked if there was some sort of set rule in Palm Desert and some organization comes out because he was paying for his share down in front of him. It came out of his tax bill. He wanted to know who was going to take care of them. Chairperson Beaty asked if he was talking about the area along Hovley and Mr. Dews concurred. Mr. Alvarez informed Mr. Dews that typically the cost was picked up by the property owners as an assessment district. Mr. Greenwood said it was addressed in Public Works condition number seven. MR. LES THOMAS, 40-588 Meadow Lane, said that he lives to the west of this project and there were 4.5 acres that were still sand. After they developed this one the only one left was between his backyard and that one. The sign said "sale pending." He said he hadn't received anything or seen anything in the mail about that piece of land right behind his. He had a 35-foot setback from the wall and he thought he heard 15 feet for the house on that one. He was concerned if it was 15 feet they were getting awfully close to that wall. With 35 feet he had a pretty good view. After further discussion and clarification, he asked if the setback was 15 feet. Mr. Alvarez said that the minimum setback for single family homes was 15 feet, but typically with a pool behind there it would probably create a larger setback, but the minimum was 15 feet. ,mow 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Mr. Thomas said that the plot on the other side of this one had "sale pending 20 homes coming" and there was a little bit of confusion. He asked if that one was also coming up soon. Mr. Alvarez said that one had already been approved. Mr. Thomas said he never received a notice about that one. Mr. Drell indicated that it was approved eight to ten years ago. He said that by virtue of the fact that these were long skinny lots, typically they ended up with deep setbacks in the rear. Mr. Thomas said he knew the two young kids that inherited that piece of land back there so he didn't have a problem with them and didn't mind them having a house behind him because he had sand and dust back there. He didn't have a complaint about that. He was. just concerned. He thought they were talking about the piece toward the Sonatas. Commissioner Jonathan explained that the reason they couldn't answer Mr. Dews specifically where the homes would be located was that before the commission tonight was simply a tentative tract and no precise plan. He thought if he stayed in touch with staff, they would let him know as the project developed where the individual homes would be located on each of the lots. His guess was that the setback from his wall and home would be more than 15 feet. Mr. Alvarez informed the audience that there were plans that would be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission on Tuesday for those present that might be interested in where the homes would be located and they could contact him any time and he would go through that with them. The meeting would be Tuesday at 1 2:30 p.m. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant would like to provide any final comments. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Hacker to address the grade differential and the possibility that the lot could be down sloped so that the pad of the home would be close to the pad the neighbors. 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 wow Mr. Hacker said they could run the slope down back there and would work with staff. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026, approving TT 29893, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. ZOA 00-10 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a resolution recommending to the City Council an amendment to the Municipal Code, Chapter 25.58 (Off-street parking/landscaping of parking lots). Mr. Drell recommended continuance. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION regarding this matter. There was no one and Chairperson Beaty asked for commission action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, to continue ZOA 00-10 to December 5, 2000 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case Nos. GPA 00-04, C/Z 00-07, PP 00-11 & VAR 00-06, CHARLIE SWEET, Applicant Per Planning Commission direction on October 17, 2000 presentation of a resolution denying the above cases, which were a request for an %NW 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 amendment to the general plan from medium density residential to office professional, a change of zone from PR-7 (planned residential 7 units per acre) to O.P. (office professional) a precise plan of design for a 64,521 square foot two-story professional office complex. A height exception (variance) to increase the permitted building height from 25 feet to 30 feet and, a joint use parking arrangement with the University Baptist Church adjacent to the east for property located on the north side of Fred Waring Drive, 300 feet west of Fairhaven Drive, 72-600 Fred Waring Drive. Mr. Smith indicated that as outlined by Mr. Sweet earlier this evening, since the commission's last meeting he had revised his plan considerably and he in fact had taken the revised building elevations to Architectural Review Commission. They continued to support the higher building and reaffirmed that action. Essentially the commission had two options. They could adopt the resolution they directed staff to prepare which would be a resolution of denial or they could refer the matter back to staff for renoticing and reconsideration of his amended plan if they thought it had some merit as he described it and as it was described in the staff report. There was a reduction in the building area and the addition of more onsite parking. Mr. Drell added that if after examining the proposed changes the commission still felt that they should deny the project he would like it in the minutes so that if on appeal it went to council and the council asked if the commission was aware of these changes, they could say yes so that it would not have to come back again. Chairperson Beaty asked if these changes meant that this could be considered a new project and if it was significantly different. Mr. Drell said no, the character of the project was substantially the same. It was up to the commission to decide whether the change was sufficient to warrant reopening the public hearing and officially considering them. In practicality it would be like a new project in that they would readvertise and renotice the project again. Commissioner Campbell asked how Mr. Sweet felt about renoticing everyone. Mr. Sweet said that the land owner's preference would be to take all the proper routes and secure the approvals all the way from ARC, Planning Commission, Council, etc. They would like the commission to take a couple of minutes and let him go over the changes they made. 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 If they were within striking distance of going through the proper cycle, then they would be in favor of that. Commissioner Finerty said that she didn't know how the rest of the commission felt, and she knew they had a major concern about the parking arrangement when it was 50-50, but it was her opinion that 65-35 and increasing 19 parking spaces just wasn't enough and she would therefore move that they deny the project and not go forward with renoticing it unless the applicant could come up with a significant increase in parking. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. On principle, he didn't like it when they went through the entire process, arrived at a resolution one way or another and then it got reconsidered when it really should just be a formality of voting. They had gone through the deliberations and the process. If the project was going to change, it could either go to council or it could come back to the commission as a new project with, all the public noticing and all the documentation they normally received. They had been there and done that and it should just be a formality. He wasn't at all comfortable going back through a reconsideration of the project. He agreed with Commissioner Finerty. Chairperson Beaty noted for the record that he was not at that public hearing and would be abstaining. He asked for any comments by Commissioner Campbell or Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Lopez concurred. The changes to him were not substantial enough to justify anything other than the adoption of the resolution of denial and let the process continue. The changes were not substantial enough to justify bringing the matter back. Chairperson Beaty noted that there was an appeal process available. Commissioner Campbell said that she voted in favor of the project. Mr. Sweet stated that as resubmitted, all the heights and all the setbacks met or exceeded the standards required by the city. The shared parking met and or exceeded all the city statutes and ordinances so there was not one aspect of the project that was in violation of any statute or ordinance. There was a comment at the last session with tow 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 regard to the shared parking that this would be the first shared parking project in Palm Desert and that wasn't the case. In fact, after the meeting he talked to the traffic manager Mr. Greenwood and he mentioned that evening that there were two churches off of Cook Street, one to the west side and one to the east side. They were severely under parked but since they only operated on Sundays they shared with an industrial building with no problem. A third example of shared parking was the Hope Lutheran Church at Portola and Fairway. They shared with the fellowship hall and it was a very busy place. The fellowship hall had 56 meetings a week-- morning, noon and night and that worked out fine. They weren't setting a precedent. L.G.'s Steakhouse and the new office building also shared parking. He felt it was pretty common in the city so they were not breaking any ice here being a pioneer on shared parking. It was good for the office project and good for the church property and improved it as well. The shared parking ordinance also stated that if they met the requirements, the parking considered offsite (and in this case on the Baptist Church property) those parking stalls had to be within 300 feet of the primary property. All that covered parking they added was within 270 feet. Once again every aspect of this project was within the ordinance and statutes. Chairperson Beaty asked if Ms. Rogers would like to offer any comments after waiting so patiently. MRS. JUDY ROGERS, 43-840 Fairhaven Drive in Palm Desert, stated that she lived just east of the property. She had spoken on the matter before and wouldn't reiterate everything she talked about but she wanted to mention that the shared parking was a concern to their neighborhood only because they already had some blocked streets and the only thing separating their neighborhood from this additional parking that they were proposing was a little cable across a driveway. She thought that would be easy enough to forget about in the haste of people having to leave their parking spaces at night to get home to their families and cut through traffic, etc. That was really all her concern was. She didn't want a big high building next to her home. She had already given up a view, -and several things, due to all the commercialism along Fred Waring. The building itself wasn't the problem. It was the parking. 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 too Chairperson Beaty asked for further commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1-1 (Commissioner Campbell voted no, Chairperson Beaty abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2027, denying Case Nos. GPA 00-04, C/Z 00-07, PP 00-1 1 & VAR 00-06. , Motion carried 3-1-1 (Commissioner Campbell voted no, Chairperson Beaty abstained). B. Case Nos. CUP / PP 00-11 & DA 00-02 - HARRY SCHMITZ ENTERPRISES, INC. AND V. CARLOS, Applicants Per Planning Commission direction on October 17, 2000, presentation of a resolution denying a conditional use permit/precise plan of design an development agreement for a 23 room residential care facility on .55 acres located on the west side of San Rafael Avenue, 420 feet north of San Gorgonio Way, 44-555 San Rafael Avenue. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Beaty abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2028, denying Case Nos. CUP / PP 00-11 & DA 00-02. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Beaty abstained). 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 - (No meeting) 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 F. PALM DESERTMANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) G. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS 1. Mr. Drell noted that the city was embarking on a large general plan process and they would be forming a general plan advisory committee. The format would be that individual elements would be reviewed by different commissions in the city and this body would be reviewing the land use element and circulation. But then there would be an all encompassing committee which would have broad representation of which there should be one member from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jonathan agreed to represent the commission. 2. Mr. Smith advised that at the next meeting there would be a request to go to medical office use in the building at Parc Center at Country Club across from Whitehawk. Parking surveys were being conducted but if the commission happened to have an opportunity to drive through there to check it out within the next couple of weeks, they could see the level for themselves. It was an existing building at the northwest corner of the intersection with the signal at Whitehawk. 3. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that they often hear accolades for the staff by the applicants and a lot of cities never hear that, so he wanted to note that and express his own appreciation. Commission concurred. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m. PHILIP DRELq Secretary ATTES PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission Am 48