Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1219 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 19, 2000 7:00 P.M. - ADMINISTRATION CONFERENCE ROOM to. 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 Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: Cindy Finerty rrr Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the December 5, 2000 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the December 5, 2000 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent December 14, 2000 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 .n11 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP/CUP 99-7 - PEARL DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a two-year time extension for a precise plan of design/conditional use permit (including a height exception for the three (3) story portion) as it relates to a proposed 250-unit continuing care retirement community and a community center building 10.3 acres on the west side of Fairhaven Drive south of Parkview Drive at 72-755 Parkview Drive. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving a one-year time extension by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. PP 00-22 - CURTIS R. SHUPE for ELLEN RABB, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to construct a four-unit apartment building located on the south side of Shadow Mountain Drive, 600 feet east of San Luis Rey Drive. Mr. Drell explained that the request was for a four-unit multifamily project on Shadow Mountain Drive. Mr. Drell stated that the project would conform with all zoning standards. He noted that the landscape plan had been modified to reflect desert landscaping in the front. It received preliminary approval from Architectural Commission. Staff recommended approval. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. 4 3 4 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 MR. CURT SHUPE, Architect, 73-255 El Paseo, stated that he was present to answer any questions regarding the project. He said it was a simple four-unit project surrounded by similar projects. They were trying to fit into the neighborhood and give an investment property to his client. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Shupe was going to take all the recommendations from Architectural Review and implement them. Mr. Shupe said they had already made modifications to the plans and staff indication was that they were now in compliance with the recommendations of the Architectural Review Committee. As he understood it, they would go back to the committee for final approval. They had no problem regarding any of the recommendations. They added an entry tower between the garages seen in the back and added some windows and additional architectural treatment on the sides of the garages to the front. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wanted to address the commission in �. FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. JERRY CLIFFS, 42841 Christian Street, addressed the commission. He said he lived right on the corner where this development was going to take place. Chairperson Beaty informed Mr. Cliffs that the project he was addressing would be next on the agenda. Mr. Drell explained that the project the commission was currently discussing was located on Shadow Mountain Drive. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. 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. 2039, approving PP 00-22, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 B. Case Nos. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21-Richard 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 and a Precise Plan of Design for a mixed use commercial complex located on 7.87 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue. Mr. Drell said that this item was continued in part to allow for the completion of the traffic study, which was completed, reviewed, modified, and amended. It now complied with the Transportation Engineer's requirements. To summarize the conclusions of the traffic study, Mr. Drell indicated that the project would generate 5,970 daily trips. That was 2,985 comings and goings of which approximately 420 would occur in the morning peak hour and 825 in the evening peak hour. With the addition of all the projected traffic, all the existing intersections in the vicinity would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service of "C" or better with the exception of the Sheryl/Cook intersection which currently operates at service level "F". Because of the rather continuous traffic on Cook Street, the delays from people on Sheryl trying to make left turns out or people on Cook Street trying to make a left turn in, it was such that according to the standards of traffic rating it was currently level "F". That service level could be approved to an acceptable level with the addition of a traffic signal. To add a traffic signal, there had to be a sufficient number of movements going in both directions at the intersection. Currently there weren't enough trips/cars trying to make that exit on Sheryl to meet "warrants". That was a specific number of a ratio between trips in one direction and trips in another direction which justify the addition of a signal. Currently there weren't enough trips on Sheryl to justify a signal. With the addition of the trips from the project, there would be enough to justify a signal. With the addition of the signal the service level would improve to service level "B," which was very good. There would be a lot more activity and traffic in that section of the project between Cook Street and the entrance onto Sheryl. The majority of entrances would be on Sheryl, not at the Cook Street access because the Cook Street access was limited to right-turn in and right-turn out and most of the north bound access on Cook would have to make a left turn on Sheryl to get into the project. The majority of the south bound traffic would also make the right turn onto Sheryl to get into the project because that would be the first opportunity. About 15% of the entrances were predicted to come down past Sheryl and enter on Cook, especially if they were going to the restaurant, that would be the most direct way. There was also 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 discussion of without a signal, the current potential of traffic upon exiting to go down Clifford to get to Merle to access the signal at Merle. Some 450 trips per day would be predicted to go that way to get the signal to avoid the inconvenience of making the left turn at Cook Street. So, a few things were analyzed. It had always been to a certain degree the city's Traffic Engineer's preference that a signal would be at Sheryl instead of Merle, so it was suggested that the existing signal be moved from Merle to Sheryl which creates greater separation between the existing signals on Cook Street. To further discourage left turns out of the project onto Sheryl which then could wind their way back into the neighborhood, a median control could be constructed which would allow left turns in, but would only allow right turns out. This would prohibit customers exiting the center from traveling into the neighborhood. The bad news was that it would make it very difficult for residents of the neighborhood who use the center to get back onto Sheryl. They would have to exit and make a U-turn on Sheryl which couldn't be done until the project on the north side of Sheryl was built and added enough street width or they could go down to Merle and there would be a left turn access from Cook to Merle. Creating that control would solve the intrusion problem, but would create that inconvenience for the locals using the center. From a functional point of view, which was what the traffic study analyzed, the existing road system could handle the increased traffic from the project and would substantially confine the extra activity and extra traffic to that 235 feet between Cook Street and the entrance on Sheryl. Addressing the question of whether this was an appropriate project for the site, Mr. Drell said the decision was based on weighing the potential benefits against the potential burdens of this project to the neighborhood. Seeing the streetscape that would be created, there were some visual benefits that would accrue. Clearly the perimeter single story office uses would be residential in character and the nature of offices was that the shut down at 6:00 p.m. and were quiet in the evenings and on weekends. The more intensive uses, the gas station, convenience store and restaurant located on Cook Street were as far away from the residential area as possible. Cook Street was clearly not a residential street. It was a commercial/industrial street. Having commercial uses on Cook Street was not inappropriate. Staff was suggesting that hours of operation limitations be placed on the gas station, convenience store and restaurant of 11:00 p.m. Regarding the bowling alley, it would be located toward the southwest portion of the property and had the greatest potential of creating intrusive impacts. All the access to the project was on Sheryl and Cook. None of the commercial uses on Sheryl had direct access to Sheryl. All the access was internal, both pedestrian and vehicular. Staff had concern about the late night activity of the bowling alley, bowling. Staff rejected the inference that inherently people who go to bowling 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 centers are more prone to criminal activity or other destructive behavior than for instance the golfers who now use the driving range. The difference was that the current hours of the driving range were until 8:00 p.m. and the bowling center to be successful would have to be open later than 8:00 p.m. The same could be said for gas stations and convenience stores. They have approved a number of gas stations and convenience stores in the city, some right adjacent to residential areas and through that approval process there was fear that they would be magnets for criminal activity and have turned out not to be. Neither were the Circle K's in town had been in the city some 30 or 40 years. One was on El Paseo and one was adjacent to a residential area and it was patronized heavily by folks in the neighborhood. The likelihood of them becoming magnets of destructive behavior was more of an internal management operation issue, not one that was inherent in commercial use. One could have criminal activity coming out of residences. Staff had concern especially for the two empty lots since they back onto the parking lot. They had through their experience with Ruth's Chris that long term night uses with parking lots backing up onto residences was not a good thing unless people living in those houses stayed up late. Therefore, if this project were to proceed, those two lots should be included in the general plan amendment to allow a future request by those property owners for commercial development. Ideally if they were developed there would be a parking lot and another one story office adjacent to the single family home. The best buffer of high intensity uses was a building and a building of similar scale to the adjacent residential. A question was asked about the city's long-term goals or plans for that whole neighborhood. The city has as a matter of policy the highest commitment to the preservation of residential neighborhoods. That commitment applied to this neighborhood as well. The goal was to create at the boundary of high intensity uses, in this case Cook Street and the neighborhood, a defensible boundary where they could have successful, attractive uses that were appropriate on the arterial and then successful residential uses adjacent to them. Through design that created a boundary that allowed both uses to be successful. There was also some fear that this project/commercial use would extent back into the golf course. The applicant had no plans to do that. They tried to avoid having commercial uses directly adjacent to residential uses and the whole golf course property was backed by single family homes that would be appropriate. Staff was suggesting as part of this approval as a condition that the applicant agree to the redesignation of the golf course from the current residential zone to an open space designation. That would reinforce the commitment to maintain the current open space/ recreational use. The city through the zoning policies and housing policies relative to rehabilitation, this was a unique neighborhood providing quality housing in a 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 r.. very well planned neighborhood and hopefully it would prosper and improve as time goes by. That was what the city was committed to. Staff had concern about the night time activity of the bowling alley. He said it would be nice to move the bowling alley further to the east and perhaps put an office building toward the west. He wasn't sure that was possible because there needed to be a large parking field that would serve the bowling alley and restaurant. That was something they could consider. Staff was also suggesting hours of operation limitations on the bowling alley of 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Those would be in effect until they had a good idea of how the bowling alley operates. There would be an opportunity for the applicant to come back and request an amendment. When it was all said and done, it came down to how well the design could create that defensible boundary between the commercial and residential uses in a center that hopefully would provide some service to the neighborhood, whether the neighborhood was willing to make those _ trade offs. That was what the public hearing was for. To hear how the neighborhood felt about the various trade offs. A general issue was whether some form of commercial was appropriate in this general location and the more specific issue of whether this particular plan and this particular arrangement of uses appropriate. Staff believed that the applicant had made a reasonable attempt at insulating the neighborhood from the potential negative impacts of this activity by concentrating the access toward Cook Street and by creating the low intensity uses along Sheryl. Staff therefore recommended that the commission make a recommendation to city council of approval based on the various limitations on the operation and mitigation measures on traffic. Mr. Greenwood said he was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Campbell noted that the property at the northwest corner of Cook and Sheryl was vacant and asked what was proposed for that area. Mr. Drell said that the zoning was currently office professional. There was an approval at one time for an office building which had expired. There were some inquiries but no applications had been received. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification on the access of the project for area residents. Mr. Greenwood said it would be difficult with the way it was laid out now to prohibit traffic from intruding into the neighborhood. They recommended prohibiting left turns out onto Sheryl. It would be difficult or impossible for neighbors to utilize the site and get back out. If the neighborhood wanted that access to be allowed, they could certainly allow it. He personally didn't feel that 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 the traffic would intrude in the neighborhood, especially given the recommendation on the signalization at Merle and Sheryl. Chairperson Beaty asked if they would exit onto Cook Street and make a left turn. He asked if they could access Merle from Cook Street. Mr. Greenwood said yes, but it would be kind of a circuitous route. Chairperson Beaty noted that the public hearing was open and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. Chairperson Beaty asked the applicant to describe his submittal package for the audience. MR. RICHARD HUGHES, the applicant, addressed the commission. He said the submitted included a compilation of items that were submitted to them by their neighbors, including letters of support by the condominium project immediately to the north, which has 56 condominiums. The ladies on the board interfaced with them a year and a half ago and they had been in contact with them throughout. With this product design, they had approved it and given their unconditional support. They were the project's primary neighbor in terms of impact of the project. There were letters of support from Belmonte Estates off of Cook, from the industrial section condo owners association which represented 75 different businesses north of Merle, letters of support from a petition passed around by a neighbor among neighbors which represents about 32 property owners within this residential area and letters of support from various businesses throughout the community. Regarding Simons Enterprises, the Golf Center and this project, they had been at this about a year and a half and there were two objectives they had in terms of processing this design. One was to take into consideration the input of their neighbors. What they did initially was contact the neighbors. They asked them to their clubhouse about a year and a half ago and they floated a lot of ideas about what could be done. In interviewing the neighbors they found certain issues. Traffic, potential crime, liquor license, hours of business, uses, aesthetics and value of the neighborhood and whether it was added to or detracted from. Throughout the process they had taken the posture of having had five years of business in the neighborhood providing a golf facility for not only immediate residents but people throughout the community through their junior golf program and Simons had a mobile golf program that visited dozens of schools to teach kids golf and brings them to the facility to learn it, kids who would otherwise not have access to the game. There was a foundation involved with the golf center that underwrites kids and families that don't have the financial 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 too capacity to enjoy golf, so their theme historically has been one of involvement in the community through family, seniors and children. When they designed this product, they thought in terms of the community and their neighbors. In addressing the issues that came forward, a lot got lost in the emotion. The traffic issue was the primary concern tonight. It had been addressed pretty exhaustively in the report. Bottom line in that issue was the neighbors were concerned about traffic. If they looked at the map, they had high density rental apartments across from them, high density modest income apartments, and high density condos. The residential area ran along the golf course and back toward Merle. The neighborhood was around 35 years old in a terrific location. Some people have been there 35 years and some just moved in. There was a high propensity of rentals in this area, which was mostly affected by the project, but their concern when they started this was that people leaving their project would go up the street to get to Merle to get to the signal to go north. Going north on Cook was dangerous from the exit on Sheryl. They tried to devise a plan where that could be overcome. The issue Mr. Lopez was addressing was that in order to prevent absolutely anyone transgressing the neighborhood in their car would be to prevent them from going left out of the project onto Sheryl. The contrariness of that was that residents coming to the project could enter on Sheryl, but when they left, in order to prevent others from entering their neighborhood, they would then have to then go right and up Cook and left on Merle to get back to their homes. Or they could walk because there would be a great sidewalk along their frontage. He pointed out the location of the two lots Mr. Drell talked about earlier. They were currently vacant. If they were to incorporate them into the project, they would take the same attitude that they took on the office building up toward Phyleen Miller's house. They wanted to be able to meet this demand if they didn't build this but built houses and what impact there would be on her home. The office buildings on either side took on residential characteristics with roof lines plus there were larger setbacks. He felt they gave her the value of the zone change without imposing on her any more than if they were building residences and they would do the same thing with the end lots. Those were the issues they dealt with aesthetically in taking the input from the neighbors. They eliminated the traffic issue. He tended to agree with Mr. Greenwood that the no left turns out of their project into the neighborhood was overkill and the likelihood of there being any huge numbers of traffic given the signalization at Sheryl was just about nil, but they would make that concession to make the neighbors happy. That could be reviewed as 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 arli far as they were concerned, but they had no resistance to doing that mechanical work. Regarding crime, he felt the neighborhood was very dark. There weren't any street lights. At night time they would find mischief and misbehavior where there were no people and no light. By virtue of this project being allowed to happen, the lighting (which would be down lighting and wouldn't be intrusive)would add a sense of security to the site because people would be there, the people that are there could be seen, and given the nature of the project they would have security not only because it would demand more trips from the Sheriff who patrol Palm Desert any way, but because they would have security on site both foot and car patrol. The issue of this creating criminal activity was almost opposite. He felt they would prohibit that element from showing up in that neighborhood. Regarding liquor licensing, they have had in the past licenses to serve alcoholic beverages and in order to do that they had to meet requirements of ABC which was a distance from municipal or institutional buildings like schools and churches and that was 500 to 1,000 feet so that requirement was a moot issue and was relative to city ordinances by virtue of the fact that they had it they know that it is doable. The same issue with criminal element was responded to with the same argument. The more people, the more lighting, the more security the less intent there would be for criminal �.r1 people to have their way. He felt they would be contributing to the neighborhood from that perspective. With regard to the uses, there wasn't a service station within three miles and there was a huge need for one. He felt it was really appropriate in this area of all these people needing it. In terms of the restaurant and office spaces, they had incubated the whole neighborhood in excess of 200 feet with a 25-foot setback on Sheryl which was currently just dirt and dust and a six-foot wall. It would have a sidewalk, down lighting, and the entrance from Sheryl he felt would be a country club entrance to the neighborhood which currently was simply just dirt and dust. They had taken the concerns of the neighbors to heart. He knew their positions were sincere and he felt they had mitigated them and added value by virtue of their design. They did it with the intent of placating the needs and considerations of the neighbors. In that sense the aesthetics of the design and the improvement of Sheryl he felt would certainly not diminish the value of the neighborhood. The other issue was bowling. There was a stereotype on bowling. He was going to leave that issue to be addressed by an associate of his, Mr. William Blue. He has a history of involvement in issues relating to recreation (i.e., he was a commissioner of Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) and he was 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 the CEO of Proprietor's Bowling Association of America). He was currently the Chief Financial Officer of Simon's Enterprises. He wanted him to address specifically the issue of bowling and how it fits. He thought that perhaps that shared knowledge would give everyone a comfort level that heretofore didn't exist. Commissioner Lopez asked Mr. Hughes to expand on the relationship of the golf facility and what would be left of it since this would take over part of the driving range. Mr. Hughes said that was correct. He described the current layout and indicated that when they were done, the golf facility (which was 9 three pars to the west)would remain the same. The same function, the same faculty, the same programs, the same personnel. Virtually nothing would change except perhaps the location of the clubhouse where they intended to put it in a portion of one of the buildings. They maintained the landscape plateau for all the neighbors that live in these homes. All the backyards of the homes along there faced the golf course. It was pretty nice and that wouldn't change at all. Mr. Drell's recommendation of the change to open space was fine with him since they had no intention of doing anything else with it for two reasons. One, it functioned well for their purposes. Two, the configuration of that piece of dirt and the condition of soil in terms of compaction didn't allow for anything to be done there. They had no resistance to that condition whatever. Being maintained as that vista he thought was terrific for those homeowners. Nothing would change except the function of the driving range itself. And that would be a positive because currently there were 40 foot lights out there for night driving in the evening. Those would be gone. With this project those lights would come down and there would be ground lighting. There would be an improvement in terms of things that would impose on a residential line-of-sight or view. (Someone spoke from the audience and said that the driving range lighting was approved until 10:00 p.m. but they were currently only providing lighting until 8:00 p.m.) Regarding the hours of business, it had been proven that the hours talked about could allow success. They were comfortable with that and if they had no issues whatsoever, the neighbors would probably become their biggest patrons and if after a year or so everyone thought another hour at night was acceptable he would be open to that. He had no problem with the conditions. They could argue with the effectiveness of them, but to keep everyone happy they would comply with taw 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 all the recommendations. He felt they had done just about everything possible to mitigate to zero when in most cases they could never get that close. They felt they had operated as good neighbors and in that mode designed the site. Commissioner Lopez noted that in a letter received there was a reference to batting cages. Mr. Hughes explained that at the beginning of this process they invited the neighbors in to float a lot of ideas. A couple of ideas that were suggested that didn't make it to the final cut were batting cages and day care and a few others. That was old information that was now obsolete, but the communication with those particular individuals had become nil, they were operating on old data. MR. WILLIAM BLUE, 73-429 Fox Tail in Palm Desert, said he has been a resident since 1984. He indicated that he would present his view of the modern bowling center. Back in 1985 and for a period of 40 years before that bowling occupied the most populous sport in the United States. It occupied a wonderful position. There were over 5,500 bowling centers operating and everything was going along fine. Then lots of competition came along. In addition, bowling centers (they are not called alleys any more but centers and lanes), began a program of modernization. Many of them found that the land value was too great and didn't have enough money to spend so those centers have closed. The ones that had opened up since that time were now more focused on family and recreation versus traditional league play because people were no longer willing to commit to 8, 16, 32 or 64 weeks of continuous league bowling. It was just not part of the scheme in today's society. Centers developed the opportunity to become spacious, clean, neat, well lit with full service food and beverage and a very safe haven. They in fact became indoor destinations for communities. They opened up children's centers, availability to place kids while mothers or single parents were bowling during daytime activities. In answer to the fact that one third of the population was now 25 years of age and younger, centers wondered what they were going to do to compete with computers and other games to get people back to bowling which was very popular for many years. They have changed and adapted several new things including bumpers, lasers, black lights and glow bowling and they had lock in nights for children's groups including church groups. That was 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 r.. fine for the kids but adults said they wanted to use the bumpers, too. They found out that over the years that adults had adapted to many of the new things centers were offering and were having a good time. They also had daytime activity for women, high school interscholastic programs. Six states now had full sports activity for bowling throughout their high schools (not in California), but it was a club activity and on the way he believed. He thought that many more schools were looking into it seriously because more colleges through Title 9 and other programs were offering scholarships and had bowling teams that were participating on the NCAA level and Level 2 as well. Junior instruction was a physical education alternative for high school and middle school students. Elementary school field trips were very much in vogue. Senior center day trips and centers had adapted not withstanding the ADA requirements, to the fact that they were open to having blind people, those in wheel chairs, and other physical disabilities had the opportunity to bowl just like everyone else. There was paraphernalia available and they made that available on an ongoing basis. Specifically in this valley they could look forward to business meetings and staff activities being conducted there. There were clean, spacious, modern meeting rooms. The Planning Commission could hold their meetings at the bowling center if the council chamber was remodeled again. Lots of room, clean, open and very safe. Civic meetings and activities, Chamber of Commerce meetings, birthday parties for all ages, inter-community leagues, residential and business involved, summer recreation especially here in the valley would be open for all age groups. They were proposing a split house right now. That meant there would be 24 lanes on one side and 16 lanes on the other. That was to give groups large and small an opportunity to have private parties, meetings and bowling going on at the same time without having to bother with the rest of the people on the 24 or opposite side. He believed that the center was relevant to today's community offerings for recreation and entertainment. It added to the opportunities available to both residents and visitors to Palm Desert. They had a menu of amenities they felt would rival the very latest in furnishings, safety, comfort, safety, technology, safety, and wholesome family fun in a secure environment. That was what today's modem bowling center looked like. It was a focus for families and communities and all age groups. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 MS. DIANA TYCE, 42-511 Stephanie Circle, addressed the commission. She said that they own their home and had been there since 1967. She said she spoke at the last meeting. She had many things to say then and left a lot of them out. She understood why it was so popular for the city that would approve this and understood the tax money that would be coming in also, but she also understood that many things that she has seen in all the years they have lived at this location they have seen through the valley had been so detrimental when things like this had happened near an established neighborhood. She said that they had a very low impact on criminal activity and that the neighbors have been very close knit, maybe not always knowing names but who belonged there. She got the petition list and knew some of the people, especially the Sanchers who owned seven homes in there of which they rented out. A lot of the names were of peole she didn't know. She knew a lot of people were renters. She asked the two gentlemen who presented the case if this was to happen next to their homes in their neighborhood if they would approve the project. MS. PATRICIA ROEDER, 42-671 Susan Circle, said that she was a renter in this neighborhood for six years and she has an adult disabled daughter, full time college student and uses the Sun Dial transportation. They also had a number of school buses in and out of this neighborhood that require special needs children to be transported. If in an emergency, whether it was an ambulance responding to an older resident that needed fast service to get to the hospital to live, they weren't going to get there if they couldn't turn left on Cook Street. She didn't understand why they would take out the light at Merle and move it to Sheryl and limit their ability to get out onto a very crowded street. They added two more lights on Cook Street. They were forgetting that people were speeding from 1-10 at 55 and 60 mph. They did not decelerate fast enough when they hit their neighborhood. They were moving into a school zone of 25 mph that was supposed to be enforced. She said she was also guilty of speeding in this area. They also go the other way from the 25-mph speed limit in a school zone and start accelerating from Hovley on. She said that one third of the neighborhood was invited by the applicant to give input. The majority of these people were on Gary and faced the golf course. Those of them that lived in the center core of this area, herself included, knew the difficulty of getting in and out of this neighborhood. They didn't invite them to their early meetings for their input. She said there must have been a reason for that. She only learned of this a few days when it was put in her mail box of the very first 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 hearing concerning this whole project. She actually thought it was opposite Harv's Car Wash. She couldn't believe that they would put this much activity in their small neighborhood. She really felt they didn't have a total representation from the neighborhood. They had one third of the core which they thought would like what they were presenting, but even the people who did sign the petition, it was not all of them. They didn't have the input from all of them. She wanted to know the beginning hours of the gas station/mini mart. She wanted to know what family restaurant they were proposing. She wanted to know if the 100 employees were included in the traffic report. She said they were also relying on a high school population on minimum wage and if they really thought that would bring in enough business to pay the bills. She asked about the noise from the bowling alley. No one had discussed the impact of the noise. She said she could bring up the noise because they had been in the Michigan bowling lane business for 50 years and they couldn't tell her that there wouldn't be some noise from that. People had discussed the high school football stadium, the lights, the noise and none of that was supposed to be seen or heard in the neighborhood. She was in the middle of this neighborhood and heard the high school football games, she saw the impact of the lights on her backyard in the middle of this neighborhood. At the first meeting they were saying that the Marriott needed a place for their families to go bowling. She asked about the college. They needed another activity, another P.E. requirement. She asked if anyone had considered moving this project toward to the college and toward the Marriott and toward all this new development on Country Club, Desert Willow one, two and maybe three. She didn't think their neighborhood was going to survive this easily. If this project failed after two or three years and they couldn't pay the bills and the whole complex got sold to a new owner and it wasn't a family run type of business and she asked if the neighborhood was back to wondering who was in one house and who was in another. She said that she rented. She now owned and had been an owner for over a year for two reasons. Because she was located between the College of the Desert and the new Cal State. It was affordable housing for some of them. If they were forced to move because they couldn't exist in this neighborhood, they didn't have a place to move to with the average price of a new home in this area. MS. MARGARET LONG, 74-795 Gary Avenue, stated that a year and a half ago she was not asked about this project. A piece of paper was left on her driveway. When the golf course came in it was after she moved into 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 the neighborhood and they promised that her daughter who was in second grade would have a way to get to school because they lived too close for kids to have busing at the time. Her son went to the middle school and he had to walk and he was beaten up in the wash a couple of times. They never had a way to go to school and she was always fearing for her children. They said the golf course would be better and yet she, her son, and daughter had witnessed golfers urinating on their fence. They urinated a lot on the fence. They came right down to the comer because her house was at one end where there were probably no restrooms. They lost their balls and came into her yard. They knocked the fence down. The fence had been down for many years. She was a single mom and couldn't afford to get a new fence, but the golfers would climb into her yard. When she wasn't at work and they thought she was gone they were in the yard. Her son's bicycle was stolen. She didn't think it was from their neighbors. The gardeners shot her dog. The fence was knocked down and she didn't have a fence and had no one to repair it. Her father was 84 years old and couldn't help. Her father propped it up and golfers jump over it and knock it down. Her dog got loose, he was a puppy, and when she got home from work he had been shot in the side with a pellet gun. The gardeners ' crossed their yards because these gardeners, some of them live in their neighborhood, and the gardeners would come across her yard and go through her fence. If her fence was locked, they broke the lock. They broke the fence. They broke things because they wanted to get home. They dropped beer cans in their yards. It was not the kind of place where she wanted to have a bowling alley because they would be people in this parking lot urinating against the fences. She still didn't have a very good fence and even if they built a good fence for her they would be hurtling over it. The golf balls had broken her windows. She put up $2,300 worth of shutters so that she could keep balls out and so people wouldn't break in. She was just saying that this wasn't a good thing for them. It wasn't making any of them happy and it seemed like the people on Gary Avenue were tricked. She had people coming to her house asking her to sign the petition saying that this would be great for their property. She didn't know these people. She didn't even know if they lived in the neighborhood. And people were dropping things in her driveway. They sign it"your neighbors". If they were really her neighbors, she thought they would tell her who they were or show their face. She was just telling the commission that this just didn't feel right. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 tam MS. CAROL CUNNINGHAM, 74-800 Sheryl Avenue, stated that she lived directly across what was now a vacant lot. She informed commission that Mr. Hughes came to their Board of Directors meeting on December 12 and presented the project as it is now envisioned. She read a letter into the record a letter dated December 12, 2000 addressed to R.N. Hughes, President, HCO, "Dear Mr. Hughes, We would like to inform you that we support the project which you envision for the southwest Sheryl/Cook Street area as you presented it to us on December 11, 2000. We feel confident that you have been careful to consider the existing homes in the area in your planning and that you will be willing to work with us as questions might arise. Thank you for presenting the project to us. Sincerely, Board of Directors, Vista Palm Desert Homeowners Association." MR. JERRY HARRIS, 42-841 Christian Street, stated that he lived right at the corner of Sheryl and Christian. He said that he was most affected by this project, probably more than anyone here. From his house there was nothing but sand and dirt. His only concern was how many entrances there would be on Sheryl. Mr. Drell said there was one. The existing one would be moved one lot to the east toward Cook Street. It would be about 100 feet closer to Cook Street. Mr. Harris said he would love to see this property developed because he spends Saturdays and Sundays listening to people ride motorcycles and three wheeled vehicles through this sand all day for two days a week. The rest of the people didn't have to listen to that. They were back in the circle where they didn't see that. They had a wonderful view right now with the golf course and he didn't believe that would change and would stay the same. One question was where the maintenance shops would be for the equipment and that hadn't been answered. He thought the golf course was going to be run out of the bowling alley, which didn't matter if it was a bowling alley or a building adjacent to it. The way the property sets now, it was a very big eyesore and he would love to have a nice six-foot wall down Sheryl Street with landscaping on the other side. He would love to have a wall down his property. He said that the bowling alley did not bother him at all. They were all adults. People do certain things. If they couldn't accept what people were going to do, then they needed to go somewhere else. But the bowling alley was not a negative thing. The golf course was the main thing they had in that neighborhood. As long as the golf course taw 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 existed the way it is now, he couldn't understand why there was an objection to it. (Someone from the audience said that the golf course was going to be gone.) Chairperson Beaty called a point of order and instructed the speaker that Mr. Harris had the floor and if the speaker wished to make comments, he would be given an opportunity. Mr. Harris said that he would go ahead and ask that question. Would the golf course exist like it does now? Mr. Hughes said yes. Mr. Drell explained that the driving range was what was being developed. Mr. Hams reiterated that the driving range would be developed, but the golf course itself would remain as is. There would be nothing behind their homes. Mr. Drell concurred and explained that staff was recommending that the zone be changed to require open space, but they couldn't force someone to continue to run a golf course. Mr. Harris asked if the golf course behind their homes would remain the same. Mr. Drell said it was the property owner's intent to do that, but the city could not force someone to continue to operate a golf course. He actually lives backing onto a piece of property that used to be a golf course. The owner couldn't make money at it and he stopped watering the lawn and it had reverted back to a natural state. It eventually got purchased by a public agency. The property behind their homes would not become commercial and if they proceeded with the change of zone to open space it would not become housing either. It would either be a golf course or some form of open space. Mr. Harris said his main concern was that there could be double story rental property built on that property all along Sheryl if this project didn't go through. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 Mr. Drell said that currently that was not the case. The property was zoned R-1 single family. There could be homes built there but they would be single story homes. Mr. Harris asked if there could be single story condos. Mr. Drell said they would have to get a conditional use permit, but as a matter of right they would be building single story homes in those existing lots. For whatever reason over the last 35 years not one person had chosen to do so. Mr. Hams felt that this project would increase the value of their entire area. He didn't know why the objection of all the people that weren't concerned as much as he is because he was adjacent to what was going on. His only concern was if there was a block wall built around that facility then he didn't have any concern. MR. DAVE HART, 74-657 Gary Avenue, stated that he has addressed the commission before and he just wanted to reiterate. He wanted to characterize both the opposition and those in favor. He thought they were ready to go on to City Council right now and if need be to the courts. He thought all the key issues had been addressed in a very good manner and this public hearing had been a good forum for that. The opposition he thought had laid out a very principled argument. It had been supported by existing codes and laws and going back to similar cases, as they talked about initially, the situation with Sagewood versus Wal-Mart and Chaparral when the Field of Dreams was going to locate in that area and they knew they didn't have the softball field there and there was no Wal-Mart on Country Club. Those in favor of it, he thought the central ideas revolved around convenience and recreation which were not bad things. That was the central part of their argument. The opposition had focused on the issue of encroachment of commercial property and how this affects the quality of life of the people in residential lives. He said it was just brought up a couple of seconds ago that central to the oppositions argument was this issue of the zoning change. That would impact them. As Mr. Drell said, it is zoned for low density residential. If that was developed in that way, they would be talking about families with a couple of cars at best. He listened to the traffic report and probably needed to listen to it on tape a few times to understand all of it and he needed to know what an "F" was and things like that. He couldn't help but think that there was going to be more traffic r.. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 there. He said they live in a recreational Mecca here in the desert, especially in relation to other cities around the world. He asked if we know when to say when to development of these kinds of projects. Casinos, restaurants, movie theaters. Maybe they needed another movie theater over on their corner there. He asked how much was enough here. He thought that the opposition has considered the safety of Palm Desert residents, especially the youth. He really thought that was a central concern of the people. Whereas the people in favor he thought consider first economic well being possibly at the expense of safety. Not that they haven't addressed those safety concerns because he thought they had. He also said that Mr. Hughes has some to the neighborhood and opened things up at the beginning of all this so there had been an effort made. The opposition he thought reflected the vision of Palm Desert and the people that have been in favor of this, he thought their vision was misplaced and really reflected the vision of Cathedral City. He asked if they wanted Cook Street take on the glamour and traffic congestion of Date Palm. He works in that area and it was very hard to get around on Date Palm. He knew that Cook would be a big thoroughfare and he realized that. He asked if they could mix it up. This was the holiday season and little kids were asking what they were getting for Christmas and all the wants. He said there was a difference between wants and needs. He thought the opposition spoke to the needs of the community, not necessarily just the wants. He said that yes, it would be nice to have a bowling alley. He wasn't opposed to bowling and he wasn't opposed to eating and maybe it would be nice to walk over to have that, but he thought that was about wants and not things that they necessarily need. He thanked the city for this forum and felt this discussion prepared them for consideration by the City Council and the courts. He thanked the commission. MR. BILL BORDEN, 255 Via Picon in Palm Desert stated that he also works at 75-153 Merle Drive, Suite H. He informed commission that he has spoken before and wouldn't retouch on those issues. His office was close by and in talking with a number of real estate agents, these were not concrete plans. He knew that the owners of the property to the north at the corner of Sheryl and Cook were looking at office/commercial/showroom type uses. The point was that at some point in time that was going to get built as an office or some sort of commercial type use which was going to create more traffic at an already impacted intersection. Cook Street is what it is. Once the freeway connection was put in it was going to become a 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 major thoroughfare. It was something the City of Palm Desert could make a show case for the city. This project would add aesthetic value to that. Second, he has lived in a number of places and had been in Palm Desert about five years. Inherently, the comments were always that something was a great project as long as it wasn't built next to "my" house. That was the same everywhere. If that was the case, nothing would ever get built. He encouraged the commission to look at the pros and cons and make a judgement based on that. MRS. LOU ANNE HART said her husband already addressed the commission and they live on Gary Avenue with their two children ages 12 and eight. She said that she was once a teenager and knew the value of a hangout. It was once her style to frequent them and now that she was on the other side of the window and was a parent, she was a little leery to have a bowling alley so near the high school. When her children were young and they would have a friend come over, she would tell her children to put their money away and not leave it out. Don't leave it sitting out because that was putting temptation in the way of their friends and they didn't want to do that to their friends. That was not a nice thing to do. She thought that might be what they would be doing with a bowling alley and actually a place that sells alcohol and liquor that stays open late. She thought they might be putting temptation on the doorstep of their teenager and in this world that was a pretty evil thing to do. They were faced with a lot of temptation as it is from the media, from their friends, from their peer groups and she didn't think they needed this. It was an unkind thing. She knew that they want it and when she was a teenager she wanted it, but now that she was on the other side, she had to look out for their best interests and sometimes they didn't like it a lot but it was her job as a parent to do and she intended to continue to do that. MS. KARIN TINEN, 74-622 Gary Avenue, stated that she listened to Mr. Drell and what she was hearing, and asked to be corrected if she was wrong, but what she was hearing was that surprisingly this seemed like something that was very close to a done deal. Mr. Drell said she was wrong. Ms. Tinen asked why he sounded so confident and supportive. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 Mr. Drell explained that he is a staff member. He does not vote. He provides information and analysis per his background. The commission and council have very independent minds and review the information and make their own decisions. Ms. Tinen said that the gentleman who spoke in favor of the bowling alley who is involved business wise in the enterprise made it sound like a blessing upon humanity. Realistically she didn't see it that way. Her grandson attends COD and lives with them and he was a very good student and very good person. He said he believed a bowling alley was a magnet to those who want to hang out and she thought it was rather disingenuous to point out that it would receive church members and seniors and little kiddies. The gentleman spoke of a day care center. They have day care centers for children in the Vegas casinos, too. In the gambling casinos. So one had to be wary of presenting such an argument in support of a bowling alley. The fact that it is in such close proximity to the high school and would be open late and would serve alcoholic beverages and would attract people who hang out it was an abomination and anyone who spoke in favor of developing that area, changing the zoning to PC-2 rather than having to i look at vacant land was coming from somewhere where most of the residents don't come from. She happened to be an environmentalist and it didn't hurt her eyes to look at nature and undeveloped land. Bowling alleys, find someone who wants to build a bowling alley somewhere else. Not in the middle of a residential neighborhood. It was just so wrong. She didn't think the zoning should be changed. Many of them have lived there many years and like it the way it is. They liked the peace and the quiet. She stated that she attended the first informal gathering of residents and promoters of this business enterprise and it was the supporters and business people for the bowling alley who pointed out to the residents that there wasn't a bowling alley for miles around and people who come from all over. It would attract people from the entire Coachella Valley. To present that as a selling point was unbelievable, but he actually said that to them at what she believed was the first meeting of businessmen and residents of that housing tract. If that wasn't a huge negative and stupendous turnoff for such a project, she didn't know what was. MS. MEGAN LONG, 74-795 Gary Avenue, said that speaking as a teenager she wanted to say that a bowling alley near the high school wouldn't be very reassuring because knowing some of her friends and knowing what they do over the weekends and knowing that there are types 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 tow of things that could be happening that they would be giving them a chance to do and they would be giving them more opportunities and more things to go to and basically that wasn't the right idea. She thought that the alcohol thing was a big problem and knowing most of the teenagers at the high school, they usually wouldn't pass up an opportunity if they had it. When she was a child going to the golf course, she would go to the golf course with her friends without permission and usually that is what kids do, so they did it any way and usually the people working at the golf course weren't the nicest they could have been to them and they usually didn't want kids around that often but they acted like the golf course was something that kids belong to which she didn't know any kids that went there. She was just saying that she didn't think this would be a good opportunity for the kids or for the kids in the neighborhood because there were more and more kids coming around. She didn't think it would be very helpful. MS. TERA VORCE, 74-861 Merle Drive, said that she had gotten a chance to look over the petitions and had a question about the circulated by neighbors among neighbors representing 32 plus property owners. She asked if they were saying that it was 32 plus property owners that signed this petition or if that was 32 property owners who signed it over and over again. Because she counted 18 property owners and 19 property owners which were the same property owners on both October 28 and January 14 and October 28 page 5 it looked like the same person just wrote it in. She wanted to know where the 32 plus came from because she only counted 19. Also, Sunday she took her six-year old to the golfing range which she really loved and thought was very nice, but she talked to a gentleman about the project and what would happen to the course and he said there would be a change in the effect of either moving the range else where on the course or taking it out completely, so when Mr. Hughes said affirmatively that there would not be any change to the golf course she was a little confused. She asked if there was or was not going to be a change to the golf course. In regards to the traffic, the new college was going down Cook Street and she was thinking in long term effect the students from the college would want to go and get stuff to eat or relax with their friends so they would be getting a lot more traffic coming from the college where they would normally be just going on their own way to other parts of the city they would end up in their neighborhood. In long term effect she felt that would cause more traffic in their area. She kind of wanted to know if they thought 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 traffic wise if they were considering traffic from the college going in there by the 1-10 freeway. Also, development and growth have been moving fast in our valley but we seem to forget that there are people out there who can't afford to buy a new home and can't afford to pay $2,000 for a two-bedroom apartment which is where their rent seems to be going. She would rather see a more affordable housing of one story homes or something that would enlighten their neighborhood, not take away from it. She would rather see homes there and they could make money off the homes rather than just come in and destroy what they have. All of their neighbors were family and she looked at her neighbors as her family and she would love to have more in her family if they put homes there. MR. JEFF RUNYON stated that he lives at the comer of Clifford and Sheryl and he thought a lot of their passions were directly proportionate to possibly their position in the community physically to the project and there were several who were much more impacted than others. He and his wife were probably the second most impacted and Phyleen Miller was the most and it actually looked like her home would be inside the project. He lives in the house directly across from what is now the entry to the golf club facility. He ' was concerned because he has an alley behind his house also. The traffic was a major concern to him. He thought Mr. Hughes had done a beautiful job in designing the project, but he didn't think it belonged in their neighborhood. He thought someone mentioned possibly considering relocation to another area, perhaps out by the college. He knew there was a lot of land out there. He said he has been a resident of Palm Desert for 30 years and he thought a lot of them live in that area because there aren't a lot of lights. He moved out there because he enjoyed the fact that 20 years ago it was actually in the county and he enjoyed that little bit of country before they built the industrial area. He was certainly not opposed to the project if it was somewhere else and he thought Mr. Hughes did a good job of designing it. He was very concerned as he was sure the individuals were at the end of Sheryl and anyone who might be affected by the amount of traffic that would come through there. He would like to have been at more of the meetings as far as someone who would be opposed to its location. He was certainly not opposed to bowling and loved the golf center. His father is a golf professional and was now giving lessons over there. He appreciated everyone at the golf facility for taking care of him, but that part of it would disappear and he was song for that. That might be selfish on his part, but he did enjoy having that facility directly across the 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 `w street from his house even though in its present state it has extra traffic because that entrance was directly across from his kitchen. He would be sorry to see that go although he understood there would be some limited some practice and short game practice facility and he thought the golf course was beautiful. He grew up in the business and loved golf courses. He wished that was going to stay. He felt he should say something about it. He liked the project but not in this location and he was sure he voiced that opinion for many others in the neighborhood, especially those in close juxtaposition to the project. He was sure people out on Gary or Merle were certainly not as impacted by it. Chairperson Beaty asked if he understood that they would move the entrance closer to Cook Street. Mr. Runyon said it looked like at this point it would almost be in alignment with the alley. Mr. Drell said it would be moved slightly east of the alley. Mr. Runyon said he understood that and wasn't sure what that was all about that they wouldn't be able to turn left to go back into the Sheryl Street area. Chairperson Beaty explained that it was being proposed that the people leaving the facility leaving the facility onto Sheryl not be allowed to turn left. He asked if they could access the alley. Mr. Greenwood said that the traffic study showed the access on Sheryl between Clifford and the alley consistently. The way it was shown in the traffic study they could use the alley. Mr. Runyon thanked the commission for their time and requested to be a little more informed possibly about further meetings, either pro or con. Chairperson Beaty noted there had been three meetings and asked if he had been notified. Mr. Runyon said they had found things in the yard occasionally. Chairperson Beaty asked if he was notified through the U.S. mail. `.. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 , Mr. Runyon said no. Mr. Drell explained that the city sent out 200-300 notices and everyone within 300 feet. He would have to check through the file to see why he might not have received one. Mr. Runyon said he originally got notices on the first meetings that they had across the street, the very early meetings they actually had on the project, but since then had not received any mail. Mr. Drell said that only one notice was mailed. The continued hearings were not renoticed. Mr. Runyon thanked the commission for their time. MR. JOHN TINEN, 74-622 Gary, asked if Rebecca at the end of Gary would be extended north. He asked if that was still a viable consideration or if he missed something at the very beginning of the meeting. , Mr. Drell said that as far as this project was concerned it had not been proposed. He pointed out the location of city owned property in the area they would be building housing there. The goal of that was to make this new neighborhood part of the existing neighborhood with an access to it or through it from Rebecca. That was something that was in the initial planning stages and there would be hearings. If there was no desire from this neighborhood to have a link to that, then it wouldn't happen, but that had nothing to do with this project. Mr. Tinen replied, not directly. Mr. Drell said it didn't indirectly either. Mr. Tinen said that if Rebecca was extended north it would have a direct effect on the neighborhood and the street he lives on. Chairperson Beaty clarified that Mr. Drell was saying that it wouldn't have any impact on the project that was under discussion now. Mr. Drell agreed that if it is extended it will have an impact on the neighborhood and that would be the subject for discussion if and when it is proposed. He confirmed that it was a possibility. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 low MR. STAN ASARO, 74-607 Gary Avenue, stated that he was in support of the project. There were other people in support of the project. He pointed out that usually supporters didn't come out for things like this. It was usually just the opposition. He said he has been there 12 years. He has attended all the meetings and listened to all the opposition. Projects have been going in and the neighborhood was just getting better. The neighborhood has never been any better than it is right now and any time a new project goes in the neighborhood just gets better. MR. LEON BENNETT, 48-350 Crest View Drive said that his second residence was in the Cook Street Business Park area and he probably spent more time there than at home. He spoke in favor of the project last time. He wanted to add two things. Now that Cook Street has been completed, and he complimented the Mr. Greenwood and the City for things working much better than he thought they would work, so he had a lot of confidence that what the Planning Commission and what the City did in terms of traffic studies would favorably impact the area. The second thing was that since the last meeting he has talked with both Cardiff Transportation and West Coast Transportation and they were very much in favor because of the service station that would keep them from having to travel a farther distance to get fuel for their vehicles. MRS. MOREEN HEIMSTRA, 74-862 Leslie, said she had some more issues. When the industrial park came in, they put in a wall and told them there would be no access from the industrial park into their neighborhood. They did fulfill that. They put in the wall and the industrial park couldn't get into their neighborhood whatsoever. If they moved the signal that meant all the school buses had to come out. She wasn't sure what they meant about one way exits and having to turn around. She agreed that it was a beautiful project and that bowling alleys are great and had nothing against it. When her youngest son was ill and before he passed away, they had shut down nine holes of their golf course. It was an 18-hole course and they couldn't make a go of it. They actually sold her son the golf carts and her little entrepreneur rebuilt them and sold them, so she had nothing against the golf course whatsoever. She said they were really sweet to her son. But if this project came in, the only thing she could say was ask if they could keep it out of the neighborhood. They had done this traffic study, why couldn't they put the brick wall completely across Sheryl and leave their neighborhood alone. She thought they should leave the signal alone 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 and put in another one at their entrance. She said that way the traffic could go in and out of the development without impacting their area. They would still have their exit in and out and it wouldn't disturb any of their school buses and it would give them their access and they wouldn't have to bother their neighborhood. As far as she could see, if they could completely wall them off and leave their homes alone and if thought this was something that had to be approved that they couldn't live without, that would be another alternative to keep traffic out of the neighborhood. She asked if there was any opportunity to leave their signal alone and moving their signal so they could get in and out of their development. Mr. Greenwood explained that traffic volumes in Palm Desert have increased 60% in three years on Monterey, Cook Street and Washington. He said it was time for Palm Desert to get serious about traffic. Traffic signals didn't do anything to move traffic. They stopped traffic. It was important that they not put in any impedances on Cook Street that they didn't absolutely have to have. Someone earlier mentioned Date Palm as an example. If they were to signalize each or any private driveway on Cook Street, they would be repeating the Date Palm experience. He didn't think anyone thought that was a successful example. For those reasons staff would recommend against signalizing any individual private driveway except in the case where those driveways oppose each other across the street and it serves more than one property. That was partly the reason for the recommendation to remove the one signal at Merle and move it to Sheryl. Chairperson Beaty asked if the entry off of Cook Street lined up with the entrance to the reclamation plant. Mr. Greenwood said not necessarily. Chairperson Beaty asked if it could. Mr. Greenwood said with some adjustments probably. Mr. Drell pointed out that there wasn't a whole lot of traffic going into the reclamation plant. Ms. Heimstra asked for clarification on having to make a U-turn. Mr. Drell explained that it would be similar to turning into Trader Joe's from Fred Waring. They could make a left turn into it, but they couldn't make a left turn out. It would force people exiting to make a right turn. Also, there would be the same situation at Merle. People could make left turns onto Merle. He said it was easier to make a left turn in because they only had to worry about traffic coming in one direction. When making a left turn out they had to wont'about four lanes of traffic. Typically they have created structures to allow left turns in but not out. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 �.r Ms. Heimstra asked if the project were approved if there was any way to make their access solely on Cook and leaving them alone. Mr. Drell said it would be difficult. Mr. Greenwood said it was possible, but it would require the project to have only a right turn in and right turn out access only. Ms. Heimstra said it wouldn't if there was a signal. Mr. Greenwood stated that staff would not recommend signalizing one private driveway. Maintaining flow on Cook Street was much more important than providing access to one property. MR. SID HEIMSTRA, 74-862 Leslie Avenue, stated that he was opposed to the project. He has lived there 30 years and when they started to put this apartment project in he lived just to the north of that and they were going to put in 90 bachelor apartments, no fence, one pool. Thanks to Corky Larson they went through about six meetings in Riverside. They cut it in half, they lowered it from two stories to one story, they put in two pools and a fence around it. He believed that this project was the same thing too they were running up against. It was a nice project. No matter what they tried to do around Sheryl it would add congestion to their area. It didn't belong there and would make it harder to get out if they moved the signal and put a barrier up. He said they didn't need it. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant wished to offer any rebuttal comments. Mr. Hughes readdressed the commission. He thought that consistently it was the intent of everyone here to be sincere. He thought that understanding traffic patterns and designs to mitigate issues was complicated to those that do it for a living so it was probably overwhelming to those don't. Bottom line was that there was no negative impact to the neighborhood relative to traffic created by the project. It had been mitigated to an insignificant degree. There were alternatives. Leaving it to the engineers who do it for a living and between city staff, city engineer and engineers hired by them, he was sure this was as well thought out as it could be. He appreciated very much the people's response to the project as a design item and as a use item and they seemed to have a positive regard for it and that was encouraging. Regarding the "not in my neighborhood" issue, that would never stop. With regards to this being 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 houses as opposed to their project, it would never happen. The property was not suitable for housing because of the configuration of the land in total, the costs imposed by CVWD for lining the wash which created land costs which would not provide a house that could be absorbed at$150,000, and the soils wouldn't support it. They wouldn't be able to put in the roads in and have enough left over for lots. He didn't think it would ever be homes and never should have been zoned R-1 to begin with. Notwithstanding what anyone says, that golf course would remain open space. Any hysteria to the contrary was wrong and false. He encouraged the commission to support the project and send this project up to the City Council. They would probably find themselves loved by the neighborhood once the project was built and in operation. He pointed out the project in favor that represented about 75 people and 56 properties right on top of them. A gentleman who lives right next door spoke in favor. Regarding the traffic study, they may access the alley, but they designed it the way they wanted, there wouldn't be any access to it. The bottom line was there was nothing on this property and this project that couldn't be mitigated and hadn't been mitigated. He appreciated the sincerity of some of the positions but he felt they were based on faulty assumptions and misinformation. He thanked the commission for their time. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. He noted that Commissioner Jonathan would be abstaining. Mr. Drell noted that Commissioner Finerty spoke to him on the phone and wanted him to convey her reservations about the bowling alley part of the project and would like to see alternative designs without the bowling alley. Commissioner Campbell thanked everyone for attending and providing testimony the three times the item was before the commission. There were many pros and cons expressed. There were more cons than there were pros. She belongs to many associations and it was difficult to get people to speak in favor. It was usually those in opposition. As far as the property values were concerned, she travels Cook Street and this project would be heaven to look at compared to the current eyesore. This project would actually upgrade this property because it would be a nice project to look at. It would have many facilities they usually didn't have here on Cook Street including a gas station. With the connection to 1-10, people who take that turn off need a gas station. They might have a restaurant at the corner of Cook and Frank Sinatra, but otherwise right now there weren't any. 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 Also, the people exiting onto Cook would be looking for a place to eat. They didn't allow drive throughs so she was sure this restaurant would be similar to a Denney's or Coco's. She understood that there were some smaller restaurants in the industrial center, but only the people in that area know about them. Not the driver who doesn't live in town that would want to be able to find something or might not be open until 11:00 p.m. As far as bowling alleys are concerned, which Mr. Blue explained are "centers" and not "alleys," in her opinion the bowling alleys were not a source of disturbance. She heard the testimony about it being a bad influence on high school teenagers, but she didn't agree. If they wanted to get drunk, they didn't have to go to a bowling alley to do it. She also felt the bowling alley would encourage family outings and the benefits for the bowling center out weighed any detraction they might have. She was in favor of the project. Commissioner Lopez also thanked everyone for taking the time to be at the last three meetings on this item. In reviewing it, he agreed that it would be nice to have a gas station and another restaurant in this part of town. The traffic study did a good job in identifying and mitigating any problems he had with intrusion into the neighborhood. Cook Street over the years has been improved dramatically. Over the last couple of months there have been even more improvements. It was now actually a pleasure to drive down Cook Street in the evenings when there wasn't a lot of traffic coming out of those businesses and traffic flowed much faster than they used to be able to. His house was right on Cook Street so it was much more convenient. The stigma on the world of bowling was an old stigma. He was a bowling brat and his parents both did a lot of bowling when he was growing up and it was different then than it is now. Now there were bowling centers. Places where families go and schools could be involved in. He has two teenagers and he was always looking for more things for them to do other than hanging out at the mall or finding a place where they can hang out with their buddies. He was looking for things for kids to do and he felt this was an opportunity knowing the way these facilities now run and operate. If they had ever gone to see how the newest bowling alleys were being run it was a hoot to go laser bowling and it was a lot of fun. He thought that in the long run this project which started out for him being a little difficult to accept, in lieu of what could be there in the future he felt this was a great opportunity. It would help to improve the area and he has spent a lot of time driving through the neighborhood and it was a great neighborhood. He didn't think there would be an impact on the neighborhood. He thought it would improve the entrance to the area and as stated earlier, with everything that has gone on in and around that neighborhood, both good and bad, the neighborhood kept getting better. He has watched it since he has lived here 19 years and it continued to get 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 better. He was in favor of the project. It has a lot of pluses and in the long run he felt the residents would be in favor too. Chairperson Beaty noted that someone earlier indicated that a decision was already made some time in the past and that offended him. He stated that it wasn't easy to sit there with a room full of people who are not happy with something being proposed. It didn't happen too often, but he had been trying to find out why the neighborhood was so concerned. He really thought it came down to some misinformation or fears that he didn't think would be realized if the project is built. He felt the traffic issue was taken care of. He would like to see a restriction to the alley because he felt that could be a potential problem. If the bowling center was properly managed and run, he didn't think there would be a problem. They heard very few comments about the service station and restaurant and they usually received lots of opposition to those. This came down to bowling and he used to bowl. They used to load up the play pen and take the kids and they even had a day care center. His kids turned out okay. He really felt their fears were unfounded. Obviously he was in support of the project and it looked like the project was going to pass this body. It was important for the residents to realize that if the project passed tonight there would be another level of hearings before the City Council and there was an opportunity for appeal and there would be more hearings and he urged everyone to voice their opinions there. He called for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2040, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, and PP 00-21 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 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) F. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) G. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (December 18, 2000) Mr. Drell said the main issue of discussion was amendment to the adult entertainment ordinance and reinstatement of background checks. Another item of discussion was whether to create some guidelines in the zoning ordinance for church locations and in the conditional use section create some specific guidelines that would direct churches toward direct accessibility to major arterials and issues like that and not have them in the heart of neighborhoods where when they grow and become prosperous they create problems. There was another issue of defining in the zoning ordinance portable structures which under the building code did not require a permit like large playground equipment, portable shade structures and at least in the zoning ordinance define them in such a way to make them subject to design review if they exceed a certain size. That would include tree houses. They were all gray areas in the building code and probably didn't require building permits which then made it difficult for them to regulate without defining them in the zoning ordinance. Two or three times in the past 20 years tree houses became very contentious issues before Architectural Review. Again, they were talking about a shading degree and at what point something should just be part of the diversity of a neighborhood. There were some communities that prohibited basketball hoops in front yards. He asked if that was the sort of community they wanted to become. Regarding churches, at what point did inviting 10 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 ..W or 12 of your friends over for religious and spiritual contemplation on Sunday mornings become a church. He didn't know if there were any conclusions reached. Commissioner Campbell said they were going to leave that up to the City Attorney. Mr. Drell said there had also been some recent legislation on anti-religious discrimination act passed by congress that vaguely related to overburdensome land use regulations of religious activity. Mr. Hargreaves said that wasn't clear at this point what it means and probably wouldn't be until it had been through the courts a few times, but it was being interpreted by its proponents as basically severely restricting a local jurisdiction's ability to regulate where churches go and they couldn't discriminate against them as a land use. There were first amendment implications so they could get to the point where they would have to do church ordinances like adult business ordinances. Mr. Drell said that historically they've looked at churches no different from theaters or places of assembly. He said that the 1 :1 setback ratio was brought up again because the council wanted to look at it in a broader context. They had a meeting with Councilman Kelly today and they looked at a lot of existing buildings, both O.P. buildings and C-1 buildings. Corner locations are what they really discussed. Regardless of the zoning, they suggested some alternative setbacks that would apply to corners. Basically the distance between the curb at the middle of the radius to the closest building and they were looking at possibly a 2:1 ratio and creating a triangle based on that distance from that would be the height of an equal lateral triangle and look at what impact it would have had on some of the buildings that have been built in terms of opening up the view at corners. It looked like it might be a reasonable regulation. They looked at with the El Paseo/Highway 1 1 1 building which was approximately 40 feet in that dimension, from curb to the building at the corner. It was cut back at the corner. He said was surprised how far back it was also. The building was a minimum of 15 feet on the sides and actually stepped back to 20. Cutting it to 60 lopped off a fair amount at the corner and would open it up but it probably wouldn't have been fatal. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this was in place of the 1 :1 on the sides. Mr. Drell said no. In the C-1 there was simply a five-foot setback and on the sides it would remain a five-foot setback which creates about a 15 foot building setback. In this corner area it would apply to C-1 and O.P. and not only cut back the corner but because of the triangle it cut back a certain distance back on both sides as well. 34 ""� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 So they would have a field trip. If any of the commission was interested, staff was going to go out with Councilman Kelly with a tape and look at some of the existing buildings and see what they are and see if they could replicate what they might have been with a 2:1 ratio. The new building under construction at Portola (the art gallery) would exceed the 2:1 . The A.G. Edward's would have slightly lost a little at the corner. With A.G. Edward's they vacated the frontage road and let the building move up a little bit. They took part of it away but they were doing trades where they would give us right-of-way on the side streets and we would give them part of the frontage road to build on. The direction from Council was that we weren't going to do that any more. If we have to buy real estate we would buy it and wouldn't allow people to push buildings forward. But a little of that building would have been lopped off. Not a lot because that first part of it was only one story. The building on San Pablo, the furniture store that was approved, would far exceed it. Commissioner Jonathan said if Council was willing he would be happy to participate in the field trip. `r XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Lopez commented on the traffic study prepared for the Hughes project. He felt that it was well written in a very understandable format. Mr. Greenwood said he would relay those comments to the consultant. He indicated Mr. Wes Pringle is a well-respected traffic engineer who has been in the business for almost 40 years. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, to adjourn the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m. PHILIP DRET, ecret ary ATT PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperso %NW Palm Desert Planning Commission 35