Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1121 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 21, 2000 7:00 P.M. - ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. Ill. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan �+ Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the November 7, 2000 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the November 7, 2000 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent November 9, 2000 city council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 ..ri VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 00-18 - GREGORY D. YEEND, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a 1 ,000 square foot medical office use located at 73-350 El Paseo, Unit #106. Mr. Alvarez explained that the property is located at the southwest corner of El Paseo and Lupine Lane. It has a 14,000 square foot general office and retail building. The applicant was requesting a conditional use permit to operate a 1 ,000 square foot medical office. He noted that earlier this year the commission adopted a parking requirement of six spaces per 1,000 square feet for medical office uses. Any medical office use wishing to operate in a commercial or office zone that did not have the six spaces per 1 ,000 square feet available required approval of a conditional use permit. The building currently has 3.5 parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet ratio. That meant that every tenant (14) were allocated 3.5 parking spaces. The applicant's requirement would be six spaces. That left a 2.5 space deficiency. Staff conducted several onsite visits to see if the deficiency could be accommodated with under utilized parking. Based on the survey results Mr. Alvarez concluded that there was sufficient onsite parking to accommodate the deficiency. He indicated that there was one vacant space. Previously there was a tutoring school approved with a conditional use permit. If a similar use came back, that parking demand could also be accommodated within this under utilized a parking area. For purposes of CEQA, the project is a Class 3 categorical �1 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 low exemption. He felt the findings for approval could be met and recommended approval. Commissioner Campbell requested and received clarification that in the findings on page 3 it should say medical use and not school. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant if he wished to address the commission. He said no, but was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Lopez moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. Chairperson Beaty said that he was in agreement as long as the other tenants knew what was happening. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that the ordinance indicated a need for six spaces per 1 ,000 square feet and this was clearly short of that requirement. She didn't know about the time frame. Staff's survey was done in November and she felt if it was done in January those numbers would change. It was a difficult area to get into and she would be opposed because she felt they needed to have adequate parking and this was pushing the envelope. Commissioner Campbell informed commission that she was familiar with the building on El Paseo and the parking lot in the back wasn't even half occupied. She talked with some tenants to see if they had any parking problems and they never had. The only time she had found a lot of parking was on Lupine when she wanted to park in front of the cleaners. That was the only time there was a parking problem there. She knew that the patients would probably park on El Paseo because that was the prime spot. Otherwise, in the back there was ample parking available. Chairperson Beaty called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). tow 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2029, approving CUP 00-18, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). B. Case No. PP 94-5 Amendment #1 - DRS. FRANK AND JANET KERRIGAN, Applicants Request for approval of an amendment to Precise Plan 94-5 to allow construction of a 3,693 square foot medical office building and new parking lot for the expanded medical office facility located at 42-575 Washington Street. Mr. Smith reminded commission that in May they considered a similar request. At that time they were considerably deficient in parking. The applicant sought a modification. It was rejected at Planning Commission and was ultimately dropped when the matter got to council on appeal. In July of 1994 the city approved a change of zone from R-3 to PC-2 and a precise plan request. The current request was an amendment to that precise plan. The applicant was seeking approval to enlarge the two-story building proposed on the front of the property from 2,567 square feet to 3,693 square feet and to change its use from retail and general office as approved in 1994 to medical office. In order to support that higher parking requirement the applicant acquired the property immediately adjacent to the west. That was adjacent to the existing single story building that was built in 1994-95. On that site he proposed to create 16 new parking spaces. Staff looked upon the parking for the project in two forms. He first looked at the existing building built under the previous code and using the 1994 parking standards that building had a parking requirement for 28.72 spaces. Based on the six spaces per 1 ,000 square feet, the new building would require 3,693 minus excludable space which created a demand for 19.1 for a total of 48 spaces. The proposal was for 54 spaces. From that perspective the issues that were preeminent back in May had been addressed. Staff also felt that there were an extra six spaces available that would accommodate up to another 1 ,000 square feet on the rear or west end of the existing single story building. The 1994 approval showed the building with a 15-foot setback from the Washington Street property line. There were no elevations at that point in time. The report noted that it would be in compliance with the R-3 zone standards, which have a maximum height of 24 feet. The proposal and plans showed the building basically at 24 feet with roof elements that go to 25 feet 6 inches. If found to be acceptable, a height 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 exception could be approved by City Council. This building met the 1 :1 setback to height ratio in that there would be 27 feet of setback from the curb on Washington Street. ARC considered the matter last week and felt their concern hadn't been addressed which they brought up back in April, specifically as it related to floating elements that didn't necessarily connect from the ground floor to the second floor. They were not interested in granting preliminary approval, but referred it to the commission without preliminary approval. The requested amendment to the 1994 approval would be in compliance with the parking. The site plan was generally consistent with that approved in 1994. There was a slightly larger building. The building height was consistent with the R-3 standards except for small roof sections which a height exception could approve. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions in the draft resolution. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Smith to show the commission where the floating elements were located. Mr. Smith did so, explaining that they were located in the top or west area. Chairperson Beaty asked if there was an overhang. Mr. Smith said a slight one. Mr. McFadden explained that they �.. were on the non scenic corridor parking lot side. Commissioner Campbell asked for and received clarification that they weren't available from Washington. Commissioner Finerty asked if any floating elements were visible from Washington Street. Mr. McFadden said that all the concerns that ARC had were on the inboard side. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Finerty asked what ARC felt was the remedy. Mr. Smith thought the applicant could better explain it. From the applicant's perspective it would impact the floor plan to bring it down to connect to the ground. Mr. McFadden said that there was a cantilevered balcony element he was using as a shade structure on the west side. He said the architects on the review board wanted to see some continuity between that and the ground and not have a cantilever. Mr. McFadden said he argued that there were buildings of notoriety (i.e., A.G. Edward's building and the Urrutia building) both of which had a similar cantilever and it worked. However, to not be too disagreeable, if he could gain approval of it subject to ARC comments, he would lose two parking places on this side of the site that were already built. He could bring those elements to the ground and it would increase the square footage a little bit and they would trade that off with the proposed expansion on the west side of the secondary building and just reduce that down slightly for the parking spaces to accommodate the review board's concerns. Commissioner Finerty asked if that was their only concern. Mr. Smith said yes, ultimately. Mr. Drell 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 4 commented that he didn't think the commission had an objection to the cantilever itself, just how it was done. He thought there were fairly esoteric architectural solutions that could be worked out at ARC ultimately that didn't affect the land use issue before Planning Commission. Commissioner Finerty noted that in the ARC minutes of April 11 , Commissioner O'Donnell said he would like to see a site plan or photo of the adjoining buildings since the applicant indicated it was even closer to the street. She asked if that issue had been resolved. Mr. Smith said the adjacent buildings weren't brought up. Mr. McFadden stated that he provided the photos to show that the multifamily project on the south side was much closer to the street than the proposal. He believed that alleviated the concerns. Commissioner Finerty said they didn't have the minutes of the last meeting and wanted to make sure these issues were addressed. The ARC action said it was the consensus of the commission that the applicant should proceed with Planning Commission for a decision on the building's size, height and setback. She asked if ARC was concerned about the building size. Mr. McFadden said that they were at that time because of the parking ratio. He said he demonstrated compliance with the parking ratio using the old parking standards. The project was in compliance. They had a traffic engineer involved and they did a traffic study on this and he had shown that there was compliance with the standards in effect at the time this project was approved with just the way this building is designed and he was asking for approval, but he was denied because they wanted him to comply with the new parking standards for the new building and the old standards for the old building and they had since been able to acquire some adjacent property and were able to do that without any problem. Commissioner Finerty indicated that Mr. Smith said the setback would be 27 feet. Mr. Smith concurred. Referring back to the April 11 minutes Commissioner Finerty noted that Chairman Gregory felt the setbacks should be increased. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification. Mr. Smith explained that at that point in time the plans referred to 15 feet. He wasn't sure it was necessarily clear to the members of the commission that beyond the 15 feet there was another 30 feet of right-of-way, so it was a labeled lot instead of right-of-way on the map which was a little confusing. The curb was located three feet into that, so they were still left with 12 feet plus the 15 feet for a total of 27 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification on the location of the recently acquired parking area. Mr. Smith explained that it was located to the west 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 r.. behind the existing building. It had a home on it right now. Mr. McFadden said the property had been acquired and the home demolished. Chairperson Beaty noted that the public hearing was open and asked if Mr. McFadden had any other comments. Mr. McFadden said he was present to answer any questions. He felt that a lot of the major issues were over the parking and they had been addressed. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. McFadden was set to have the height at 25'6" instead of 24'. Mr. McFadden explained that there were some architectural elements. The major roof lines were at 23'10" and the allowable height limit was 24'. Those were suggested at the Architectural Review Board a long time ago to try and provide some interest for the Washington Street elevation. There were only two or three spots that high. They had ... done that numerous times on other projects, so it was normally an easy review process. Commissioner Lopez pointed out that conditions of approval number 12 said that the property owner shall require employees of the facility to park in the west parking lot only and they had to sign the spaces accordingly. He asked how the applicant proposed to do that and if it applied to people working in the front building as well. Mr. Smith said he didn't think it would accommodate them because there were only 16 spaces. Mr. McFadden said the employees would be parking in the back for the most part. Mr. Drell suggested that it should be more explicit and say it was for the rear building. Commission concurred. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Commissioner Campbell said she thought this project really conformed with all the requirements. They had ample parking and the setback was higher than the building. She felt the 25'6" architectural elements were needed for the Washington Street corridor. She moved for approval. Commissioner Lopez asked if they should move ahead without getting preliminary approval from ARC first. Chairperson Beaty asked if they could approve it subject to ARC approval. Mr. Drell explained that ARC approval had to be obtained for the architectural plan. If there was a dispute at the Architectural Commission, then there could be an appeal to the City Council. He thought what they really wanted was to have the land use issue resolved to make sure he could do his project before they start working on the fine points of the architecture. Commissioner Lopez said he was questioning that because he liked having the ARC decision before Planning Commission review, but in this case it looked like it was close. He didn't have a problem with the height and thought those elements brought a little more character to the building itself and with the proposed setback it shouldn't be a problem. Commissioner Lopez said he would second the motion. Chairperson Beat said he was in agreement. He didn't have a major problem P Y 9 1 and was in favor as along as the Architectural Review Commission granted approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2030, approving PP 94-5 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case No. CUP 00-17 - PARC CENTER DRIVE JOINT VENTURE, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow up to 20% of the existing 60,000 square foot office complex located at 77-564 Country Club Drive to be used for medical office purposes. J, 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Now Mr. Smith explained that the request was for approval of a conditional use permit to allow up to 20% of the existing 60,000 square foot office complex to be used for medical office purposes. He reminded commission that about a year ago the commission approved a conditional use permit for a 2,954 square foot medical office use in this complex which brought the total medical office square footage in it to 7,800 square feet or 13% of the complex. The applicant approached staff sometime back to add another doctor. They discussed whether or not they should be coming in with each individual medical office or if they should be looking at the flat number. Subsequently they came in with a request to go to 20% which wasn't all that much more than the medical office they have in mind at this point which would bring it to about 18%. The new parking standard at six spaces per 1 ,000 square feet required them to look at it through the conditional use permit process. If they were to look at the remaining additional space that could go to medical office if this were approved would amount to 4,200 square feet. For that the parking demand would be another 25 spaces. He undertook a parking survey which was provided to commission. There were 15 entries which included five in the morning hours and ten in the afternoon. On average there were r, 121 vacant parking spaces. This was in two buildings with 95% occupancy. The range of vacant spaces was from 100 to 139 spaces. A year ago a similar parking survey was done, but they only looked at about half of the lot; one had 129 spaces and one 124. Back then they came up with vacant parking spaces ranging from 53 to 68 spaces, so it was very consistent. With a minimum of 100 vacant spaces, it was more than adequate to serve the additional 7% or 4,200 square feet of increased medical office. Findings were outlined on page three of the staff report. Staff felt they could be met and the proposal was a Class 3 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA. Mr. Smith recommended approval, subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. Commissioner Lopez asked if all these people walked to work. Mr. Smith said no, he thought if they looked at the type of uses contained in the building, it got a really good mix of uses ranging from attorneys, CPAs, financial planners, property managers, insurance advisors, general business uses and medical uses. Where they didn't have 100% medical use, this situation was more the norm. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. (He indicated no from the audience.) Chairperson 1r 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for comments or action from the commission. Commissioner Campbell said that she visited the site a couple of times in the morning and then later in the afternoon. She found ample parking. With the current 95% occupancy rate and amount of vacant spaces, she was in favor of approval. Commissioner Finerty agreed that as long as the mix remained it could allowable given the 100+ available vacant parking spaces. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2031 , approving CUP 00-17, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. .rr IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Request for comments on revised plans for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential/Industrial to Low Density Residential/Park, a Change of Zone from R-1 12,000 to PR-4/Open Space, a Tentative Tract Map for 270 single family lots (8,000 square feet minimum) and one lot for park purposes, a 9-lot Tentative Tract Map for financing purposes and a Development Agreement on 117.5+/- acres at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Row Drive and Country Club Drive. Mr. Drell reminded the commission that they adopted a resolution of denial for this residential subdivision and park proposal. The applicant appealed the decision. Between the time of the appeal and the council hearing, the application was modified and enhanced in terms of providing considerably more information about the project and about some of the issues that commission felt warranted denial of the project. They were provided with a handout by the applicant that provided that additional information. When the f 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 item went to council, based on the changes to the project and new information, city council wished to get the commission's reaction to the change before making their decision, so they referred the item back. Summarizing the changes, Mr. Drell explained that originally the applicant requested exception to some of the ordinance standards of the PR zone relative to side yard setbacks and wanted an exemption from the prohibition/ restrictions on the detached accessory structures. He had dropped those requests, so the development would meet all the standards of the PR zone. Relative to lot size and density, the project hadn't changed but he provided more detailed information on the mix and on the product they were proposing to build. There were sample elevations to give a better idea. Unit sizes would range from 1 ,700 square feet to 3,100 square feet and perspective housing prices would range from $229,000 to $366,000. There was also a chart giving a detailed breakdown of the lot sizes. Average lot sizes would be 9,600 square feet and 50 lots would be less than 9,000 square feet but the lots would range up to 18,000 square feet. They also had information on what lot and home sales have been over the last year. The proposed housing prices and costs were in the range of sales in the area. What this project provided in terms of density was greater diversity than the neighborhood to the west. Partly because it was in a different situation because it was between Regency Estates with 12,000 square foot lots and on the east which was Whitehawk which had 8,000 square foot lots. It would have a greater boundary adjacent to the railroad tracks and adjacent to the park and perhaps an elementary school. All of those conditions supported the project which has a greater diversity of unit size than only the highest end of the market. More important, it wasn't the goal of zoning to maximum housing cost. That was not a land use issue. In fact, it is part of the state housing law and a policy in the city's housing element to provide a diversity of housing opportunities and they were in fact charged with exploring and pursuing avenues to reduce the cost of housing. While in many situations large lots are appropriate, he thought this project given its location provided a mix of units consistent with the neighborhood. Regency Estates has 12,000 and Whitehawk 8,000 and this would provide a mix between the two. Given the accessibility to a park and elementary school, he felt it would be appropriate to provide some diversity of housing opportunities. At 3.4 units per acre it would be a low density project and if they take into account the park, it would be a very low density project. If it was all developed with 12,000 square foot lots there would be somewhere between 280 and 310 units so it wasn't unlike many other planned developments that had common open space that determines the gross •w 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 j density. The gross density of this project would be somewhere around 2.3 units per acre. It would be one of the larger single family subdivisions we have processed, which was why when they looked at the map they saw a lot of units. In terms of density it would be a low or very low density project. For traffic reasons, there was an objection to the location of the entrance. Previously it had two entrances on Tamarisk Row. One was directly opposite Regency Estates' entrance. There was a feeling that it would create congestion at that point so the applicant chose to combine the two entrances and center them in the middle of the project some 460 feet away from the existing Regency entrance, eliminating any chance of conflict. He had offered to signalize his entrance if it in some way improved the traffic flow on Tamarisk Row. The city's traffic engineer didn't believe it was warranted, but the applicant made that standing offer. He indicated the city could take him up on that if at some time in the future it was necessary, then the applicant would be willing to make that investment. In reexamining traffic counts and the projected traffic generation, it was always anticipated that Regency Estates would share Tamarisk Row with some 300 unit residential project. Sharing is sometimes difficult, but that was why the road was designed with the capacity it has and even with the trips generated by the project it would be less than one third of the capacity and would provide service level "A". The project would have fewer units using Tamarisk Row than if the project was designed as originally zoned at 12,000 square foot lots. Staff had heard again from the school district and they basically had the same conclusion that the city did. There wasn't much real estate left in this area for schools and when he explained the in kind benefits they would receive by being adjacent to a park relative to their investment, they realized that they were in essence getting the land for free since they would share the parking lot with us and share sports fields. He thought they were back on track to put in an elementary school on the site and began their due diligence and were ordering an environmental phase one assessment of the site which is the first step to go through to buy real estate. Relative to school impacts, once the project developed it would contribute some $1 .3 million in school impact fees, so he believed this project would be providing its fair share of mitigation of any future impacts to schools. There was some concern about the park site itself as being a negative impact on Regency Estates. Parks could be mixed blessings and typically their impacts were concentrated on those homes directly adjacent to them. In this case it would be on homes within the project being proposed. Typically properties that were buffered from those direct impacts received substantial benefits from being next to a park site. In terms 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 1r of impacts on parks in the city had been very good. The city manages them very well. The Recreation and Park District supervises them and he was unaware of any serious incidents of any nature occurring in any of the parks which could be detrimental to adjoining properties or property values. Ultimately they looked at a park site and park as an overall benefit to the city and that was part of being in the community. The applicant was present with more exhibits if the commission wanted to see them. Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission report back to City Council with an approval based on these changes. Commissioner Campbell asked how many two story homes would be constructed. Mr. Drell explained that based on the elevations, they presently weren't requesting any. The PR zone allows two story homes on the interior with greater setbacks. Regency Estates has two story homes. Chairperson Beaty noted that this wasn't a public hearing item but the commission wanted to hear from anyone who wished to speak. He informed commission that he and Commissioner Jonathan were invited to meet with the applicant so they did see the presentation and he recommended that all the commissioners take a look. MR. JACK SHINE of American Beauty Development at 16830 Ventura Boulevard in Encino addressed the commission. He said he was present to walk through the basics of their project and to answer any questions. When the commission acted on their project last, they heard what they said and listened to what the community said and they went out and met with Regency Estates, Palm Desert Resorter, and folks at Whitehawk to find out from them their concerns, desires, comments and critique. As a result, what was before them tonight was a significantly modified proposal on all but one of the points which they were concerned with at their last meeting. As staff said, their request to vary from the side yard setbacks was withdrawn. Also, their request for casitas out buildings was withdrawn. He thought staff had gone into detail about the school. The school site they had provided in connection with the 38-acre park in the aggregate and he wouldn't belabor the point unless there were questions. Another concern that was raised by homeowners in Regency Estates, both this year when they met with them and last year when they met with their board, was a concern over the visual impact of their project as they pulled out of tow 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 their project onto Tamarisk. That was in terms of what it would look like and what the landscaping would look like. They were fortunate that they had a computer guy that created a computer generated sketch using the actual plants that Mr. Lopez, their local landscape architect, put in the plan which was approved to show what the entry would actually look like. One view was looking in a northeasterly direction at the corner of Tamarisk and Country Club. Another was looking in an easterly direction from the exit or entry to Regency Estates across Tamarisk into the proposed project. The other issue raised by the homeowners this time was the issue of having an intersection where secondary access for part of the project was directly across from their main entry. The main entrance was down on Country Club contiguous to the park and school. They went back to the drawing board and got their traffic engineers and consulted with the city's traffic engineer to see if they could approve a combined north and south exit onto Tamarisk into one so that instead of driving in and going into their development, they drive in and go either to the south group or to the north group. They could see the subtle difference there. It gave them enough space so that there was a distance adequate between the access as it was now being proposed and Country Club to permit a signal to be put in. They were here to lobby the commission for that signal and to work with the homeowners to see if they could achieve the warrants necessary to put it in because they believed in the signal and that was why they offered it. Regarding lot sizes, he pointed out that at 9,685 square feet average, most of the lots of which were over 8,500 and 9,000 square feet. If he was a land planner, he would think it was not inappropriate that between 12,000 square foot lots on one side and 8,000 square foot lots on the other side and an industrial park on the immediate east an in between zone size would not be inappropriate. What he was requesting was that the commission favorably consider their request for a reconsideration with respect to those lot sizes in the hope that they could see, as they believed, that they were not inappropriate and ought to be approved. Chairperson Beaty noted that at their meeting Commissioner Jonathan asked about the difference in the average lot sizes in the north section and the south section. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Mr. Shine explained that the south project had an average of 10,142 feet with a minimum size of 9,000 square feet. That was by design for the product they were designing. The northerly project has an average size of 9,602 square feet but there were four lots that were under 8,200 or 8,300 feet. Two-thirds of the lots were well above that. If they took out the 1 % which were the small lots, the basic lots on the north side were 8,400 to 9,200 square feet. Primarily that was because of their closeness to the railroad and other things that made them not as desirable as those folks living closer to Country Club. The 9,200 to 10,400 square foot lots represented 45% or 122 lots and the other 46 lots were 10,500 to 18,000 square feet. He included in commission packets a breakdown of each and every lot by lot number and size so that they could see that. He said he would be happy to make copies of the new chart. Commissioner Finerty informed Mr. Shine that the packet prepared for the commission was most helpful. It delineated her concerns and she appreciated the square footage information, the price range and being able to see how many lots were under 9,000 square feet and how many were above. She said that the pie chart was great and it was a job well done. Mr. Shine thanked his staff for being able to produce the charts and thanked Commissioner Finerty for her comments. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that the entrance on Country Club was not opposite Palm Desert Resort. Mr. Shine said it was. Using his drawings to demonstrate, he said if they took the large street coming up from Country Club, that was where the signal was right now at the Resorter and they formed a four- way intersection because there would be a median in the middle of the street and there would be a pocket where cars would turn out of the normal traffic lane into a turn pocket and that would give left and right turn ingress and egress into their project. When they drive in, they would have several choices. They would be able to turn right to get into the school. They would then be able to get into the park and then they would come to a round about or cul-de-sac and they would have a choice to go through one of two sets of gates. One to the north development and one to the south development. By eliminating the two 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 secondary accesses on Tamarisk and combining them into one, the sketch wasn't totally accurate any more because now instead of driving through they would drive in and have to make a choice of which gate to enter. He pointed out that when they were done, Tamarisk would be fully improved, curb to curb. It was only half improved right now. There would be four lanes, two going each way and wherever there was a turn, there would be a pocket with a striped divider. Their hope was to convince everyone that there were sufficient warrants to justify putting in the traffic light. He knew the arguments but thought it would be nice. Commissioner Campbell said that if it was ever needed, it would be available. Mr. Shine said they were making that offer, yes. Commissioner Lopez also stated that the additional information provided was very helpful. It alleviated his concerns. He said that he looked at this from the housing standpoint specifically because he didn't want to be swayed by the regional park and school site. He knew that the regional park was really needed for that part of town. He questioned if the park would be 38 acres. Mr. Shine confirmed that it would 38.5 acres including approximately eight and a half or nine acres for a school site, which would normally be 10 or 11 but there would be shared facilities. The 38 did include the school site. When driving in the ingress and egress, they could go right into the school at that location. Commissioner Lopez said that knowing the traffic demand that is at every school and the access on a major thoroughfare, he wanted some clarification as to how all of that would work and how it would work well. At Palm Desert High School it was chaos. Mr. Drell said that was mainly because the circulation at Palm Desert High School was horribly designed. The most obvious entrance was precluded by a lawsuit. The most obvious entrance was from Cook Street but because the district designed it they put the entrance right next to the back yard of a single family development which they didn't consult well with and they had been suffering with that situation ever since. They were trying to rectify that by developing an access to Cook Street. The other problem with the high school was that every high school student had to a own a vehicle. There were more kids going to elementary school riding on the 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 bus and it was a far smaller facility than the high school. Commissioner Lopez said he also took into consideration Carter School. The school district seemed to be able to do whatever they wanted and the City couldn't do a whole lot about it. Mr. Drell said that in this case, they could. As an example, Commissioner Lopez said that across the street were the Desert Springs Villas. When Carter School decided to change their egress and entrance, everyone started making a U turn into the entrance of their Villas and he sat there one day and was awed by the parents who made U turns with their kids in the cars and he almost saw about five or six accidents. These were mothers and fathers doing this and the traffic was going about 45 mph. He hoped they had learned their lesson as they progress down this road and that these issues were taken into consideration. The park itself was 38 acres and they would need five to eight acres for a school. Mr. Drell said there would be eight acres of exclusive school use and about four acres of shared use. As a reference point Mr. Shine said that the most easterly side of their property with a line drawn straight down would give them an idea of the school being on the west side of that. It was there because there �.. was a signal and it was a four-way intersection. Commissioner Lopez asked for confirmation that the regional park total acres would be 30 acres. Mr. Drell concurred that it would be 30 acres and a portion of the school site would be available during non school hours. He said that Commissioner Lopez brought up a good point. The problem with schools was that once the property became school property, then they were no longer subject to local land use. What they would attempt to do was make sure they had the school planned and designed before the land was given or sold to them. That way they would have full agreement on the design before that transaction occurred and they lost the control. Commissioner Lopez thought the applicant had done a marvelous job alleviating the problems he had with traffic on Tamarisk, but he wanted to make sure they didn't create a problem on Country Club. Mr. Drell said it would be an elementary school and the access would be on that internal street, not on Country Club. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that the internal street was not like Hovley, so it would be more of a private street. Mr. Drell said they would try to make sure all the bus access was off the street and the school readily admitted that they made some mistakes at Carter and hopefully this would be a lot better. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 MR. JOHN YOUNG, 76-984 Sheffield Court, informed commission that he was the President of the Regency Estates Homeowners Association. He said that other than changing the entrance, he didn't think they had changed much as far as their concerns. The zoning was R-1 12,000 when they bought. They were told it would be R-1 12,000 and it was R-1 12,000 when the current property owner bought it and they were trying to zone it smaller. Interestingly enough, his price range was $229,000 to $366,000 and the next three sales that were going to close in Regency Estates would be $371,000, $372,000 and $445,000 respectively. This development would have a negative impact. It was not in keeping with what was currently there. Whitehawk was actually on the other side of the street and further down. Fortunately or unfortunately for them, even their prices were starting to hit the higher $300,000 range. The project would have a negative impact on the current property values. He said that Van Tanner, a member of the Parks Commission, was at the City Council meeting and he spoke adamantly against it mainly because when he bought it was R-1 12,000. They were told continuously while it was county and then when the city annexed it that it would continue to be R-1 12,000. There had been other attempts to change the zoning. They did not feel as an association, and they did not feel as homeowners and he had 12 people call him today who could not attend, and they were vehemently against it. They had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Shine and he was very nice but it did not alleviate their concerns relative to size, conformity to the existing area, conformity to the existing zoning and any potential impacts to their property values. He stated that they had other projects coming along in Rancho Mirage at 12,000 and 14,000 square feet and obviously that price range was doable for that sort of product. They saw no reason why they should potentially suffer negative impacts from this project by this project being down zoned to R-1 8,000 minimum lot size, notwithstanding 9,000 square foot average lot sizes. They weren't going to build them. They would sell lots off. Whoever bought them would be building their own product. The residents had seen nothing here that alleviated their concerns or changed anything other than modification to the entrance. Everything they had before with the 5-0 negative vote was still there. Mr. Shine asked if all the letters of support had been passed out. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 Chairperson Beaty said there were three that were included in the packet. Mr. Drell confirmed that they had also received the letter from Whitehawk and letters from residents of Regency and Regency Palms. Mr. Shine said the President of Palm Desert Resorter didn't write a letter but came and testified in support. Commissioner Finerty indicated that she also received an e-mail from Mr. Harland. Mr. Drell explained that staff was requesting a minute motion action from the commission to express the commission's opinion. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would recommend to City Council approval of the revised proposal. She noted that not everyone in the city was lucky enough to be able to live on lot sizes of 12,000 square feet in Palm Desert. The other projects had average sizes of 10,000 and below, so she didn't see a problem. r.. Commissioner Finerty concurred. She thought that given the range of prices from $229,000 to $369,000 and the square footage from 1 ,700 to 3,100 square feet, they had to keep in mind when property backed up to the railroad tracks it wasn't reasonable to have R-1 12,000 square foot lots with that type of house on that type of lot. She knew that Project Area 4 expressed concern for proper screening for control of blow sand and the Project Area 4 Committee was in favor of the concept of these homes, the school and the park. She appreciated the applicants meeting with the neighbors in the surrounding area and taking the time to explain it. She thought they had alleviated most of the concerns with the exception of the zoning. She thought that when they looked at the big picture here it would be wise to go ahead with the project and would second the motion. Commissioner Lopez stated that his concern when they first viewed the project and had the public hearing was the size of the lots and needing something around 10,000 square feet and this was very close. When they take a look at the tables there were a lot of them underneath the 10,000 square foot margin, but the average was somewhere in that area. His two biggest areas of concern were lot sizes and setbacks. He stated that those concerns had been alleviated. He thought they had done a great job and he 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 had reviewed the letters and read the previous minutes and felt comfortable with it. Chairperson Beaty stated that he was in agreement with his fellow commissioners. He was strongly opposed to the idea that lot sizes directly related to value and to whatever implication was being made by that. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that this would also be a gated community. That would solve a lot of the problems. She didn't think that most homeowners or people driving by the area would even notice the lot sizes. Nice landscaping was shown and would be maintained by the HOA and there should be a level of comfort there. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, recommending to City Council approval of the revised proposal by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. l B. Discussion of whether a part-time marriage and family therapist falls within educational services as defined in the Home Based Business ordinance. Mr. Drell stated that the commission received a letter from the applicant who was requesting a home occupation permit to run a part-time marriage counseling center from his home. The commission had a copy of the Home Occupation Ordinance and there was a section on instructional services which allowed people to come to a home and a section on professional services which didn't. He felt this was something in between and staff was coming to the commission for some clarification and guidance as to what they thought. His gut feeling was that this fell within the acceptable category, especially since it was a part-time use. He said it wasn't explicitly called out in either category. There was a blurry line between being a counselor, being a psychologist, a psychiatrist and a doctor. The ordinance did not allow a doctor's office. Very few doctors operated part time and those uses were fairly intense. This was somewhere in that continuum. He believed that this probably fell closer to the instructional, especially in terms of its overall intensity of that spectrum and therefore being permitted. He also pointed out that there was an escape hatch in the Home Occupation section which said 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 that even after they have approved something and it turned out to be more intensive than they anticipated, they have an ability to not renew the license or revoke the license if it grew in intensity beyond what they would consider to be compatible with residential areas. Chairperson Beaty said he didn't have a problem with it. It could almost be a professional office. Mr. Drell said that professional offices technically only had mail and phone service. Commissioner Campbell noted that this would only be three appointments in the evening Monday through Thursday 5:30 p.m., 6:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. Chairperson Beaty asked if the adjacent homeowners were aware of the proposed business. MR. JIM POWELL, 78-880 Runaway Bay Drive in Bermuda Dunes, said he had not spoken with the neighbors. He said this was a home they had put an offer on. Chairperson Beaty asked if he would be using it for his primary residence. i.. Mr. Powell said that was correct. At this point there was an empty lot to the south which was right on the corner of San Jacinto and San Alessandro and there was a plan for a medical office building there. To the south of that there was an empty lot and then to the south one more lot was a small home that was in an estate sale right now. One more lot over was a group of around eight condos. There was a mix in the neighborhood. Chairperson Beaty stated that he didn't have a problem with that. Commission concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, determining by minute motion that marriage and family therapist services falls within educational services as defined in the Home Occupation Ordinance. Motion carried 4-0. r.. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 ) f j .�.rr C. Discussion on consideration of changing meeting days from Tuesdays to Thursdays to avoid conflicts with elections. Mr. Drell said that going to Thursday would eliminate problems with having planning commission and city council meetings on the same week, so that would eliminate that conflict. It would also give the commission longer time with their packets and the applicant a longer period of time to review staff reports. Sometimes they didn't receive them until the day of the meeting. It would also delay items going to city council because it left less time to schedule the items for those meetings. Chairperson Beaty said he didn't have a problem. Commissioner Campbell said she did. She would rather have the meetings on Tuesdays because Tuesday was the first of the week and by Thursday it seemed that the end of the week was busier. If they just wanted to change it because of Election Day, she recommended not having a meeting on Election Day. That would take care of that problem. Mr. Drell agreed that was another way to go. Commissioner Finerty stated that she didn't mind keeping the meetings on Tuesdays as long as there were no meetings on Election Day. j Action: w� It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, to continue having Planning Commission meetings on the first and third Tuesdays of every month, but canceling the first meeting in November on election day. Motion carried 4-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (November 15, 2000) Commissioner Campbell stated that they discussed criteria for the selection of art, artists and sites throughout the city and they also gave conceptual approval for the amphitheater structure in the Civic Center Park. Mr. Drell asked if the planning commission had seen the amphitheater proposal. They said no. Mr. Drell said that at a future meeting staff would show it to them. He said if it was approved it would be something that people would come to see from all over Southern California. He thought it would have the same impact on Palm Desert that the Eiffel Tower had on Paris, although it was a lot prettier than the Eiffel Tower. Commissioner Campbell confirmed that the 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2000 tow proposal was gorgeous. Chairperson Beaty asked what size the new amphitheater would be. Mr. Drell said it would remain the same size and gave a brief description. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (November 21 , 2000) Commissioner Finerty said the meeting was informational. E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (November 20, 2000) Commissioner Finerty said this meeting was also informational and about American Beauty Development, which they endorsed as she mentioned earlier. F. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) G. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adjourning the meeting by minute M tion c ed 4=0.,.._Tbe meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m. �-- Q= PHILIP DREL Secretary ATTEST• /j �' PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperso tom Palm Desert Planning Commission 23