Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0320 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - MARCH 20, 2001 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER �••• 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE � .� * .� .� �. � �. � * � � � � � � � � � � * � � � � .� .� .� � * * * � � �. � � * * � .� � � I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chai►person Cindy Finerty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Sabby Jonathan Dave Tschopp "�' Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Jeff Winklepleck, Parks and Recreation Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Mark Greenwood, Engineering Manager Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the March 6, 2001 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the March 6, 2001 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION � Mr. Drell summarized pertinent March 8, 2001 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 .dr VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 01-02 - MESQUITE, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 32 and 33 and Lot 34 of Tract 25296-1 to accommodate a residence, pool house and improvements in Bighorn Country Club. B. Case No. PMW 01-03 - ROBERT AND ALICE ABT, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust lot lines between Lots 24 and 25 on Wanish Place in Bighorn. C. Case No. PMW 01-05 - SIXTH STREET PARTNERS 1, LLC, Applicant "'� Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to reconfigure six parcels into four parcels located in Desert Country Plaza on Country Club Drive. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, o� p�ior to, the public hearing. � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 � A. Case No. PM 30042 - DAN ALLRED/AMERICAN REALTY TRUST, Applicant Request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide 134.3 gross acres at the northwest and southwest corners of Cook Street and Geraid Ford Drive into 20 lots for business/industrial purposes, 74-900 Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Smith indicated that plans were on display and copies were distributed to commission. He explained that the request was for a 20-lot parcel map. Eighteen of the lots would be located on the north side of Gerald Ford and two of the lots on the south side. The lots on the north side would be served by a new loop street that would be 52 feet curb to curb with 10 foot parkways on either side. The traffic department advised that was consistent with the street plan. The lots in that area range in size from 63,000 square feet to 1 14,000 square feet and they generally back onto the railway and there were also some lots that back onto Cook Street. He said the biggest parcel in this area is 49 acres and fronts onto Gerald Ford. As well, there are lots on the ,r�, south side that generally follow Planning Areas 3 and 5 from the Wonder Palms Development Plan. The size, density and layout of the lots and the street were adequate and staff felt the findings could be met as outlined on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report. The plan as presented was consistent with the development plan which was previously assessed for purposes of CEQA and no further documentation was necessary. He recommended approval of the findings and the draft resolution, subject to conditions. Commissioner Jonathan asked how the 52 feet compared to a normal street width. He asked if this would have one lane in each direction and asked for a street to use as a basis of comparison. Mr. Greenwood explained that there would be one lane in each direction plus a two-way left-turn lane, plus parking on each side. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was staff's opinion that one lane in each direction was adequate. Mr. Greenwood concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a future plan for the west end of that street. Right now there was a sharp left turn onto Gerald Ford. On the west side of the street it curved to the south and met Gerald Ford. He asked if there were future plans to extend that street further west. Mr. Smith indicated that the conceptual circulation plan showed a street connecting to it and going out to Portola. Commissioner Jonathan noted it would be kind of a parallel approach to Portola and in light of the future plans for that street, he r.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 t e i � .ri asked if staff still believed one lane in each direction was adequate or if that street would be expanded when it was extended to Portola. Mr. Smith said he didn't believe it would be extended at that point and felt it would be adequate. Commissioner Campbell asked if there were plans for the 49.1 acres and if that would impact the street size. Mr. Smith said it would also have access off of Gerald Ford if it developed as a 49-acre piece. Commissioner Campbell asked if the other street would remain as is or depending on what was built on the 49 acres, it could be widened. Mr. Smith said that if the use for the 49 acres was a high intensity land use that they didn't anticipate, then additional right-of-way could be taken. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MARVIN ROOS, Director of Planning Services for Mainiero, Smith & Associates, representing Ame�ican Realty Trust Basic Capital addressed the commission. He stated that they concurred with the � staff o inions and recommendations and were ha ""� p� ppy to move ahead with it. He pointed out that they were moving ahead with the final improvement drawings on the east side of Cook and all the restaurant pads except for two were spoken for in terms of developments that were through the City or coming to the City soon. The area was becoming of high interest and Mr. Allred asked them if they could get more lots for the type of uses that were going into the back areas. They had been discussing what could go on the front area and at this point they didn't have a major user and that was what the city staff had asked them to try and hold for and not create a bunch of small lots in there. In a perfect world they would like to see an urban village there that would pick up off of the campus eventually where they would have a lot of activity and day and night uses with offices and apartments. It was hard to find village developers, so they were working on that. He said they felt the streets were adequate. They were working with Tom Noble on a design for the Dinah Shore/ Portola extension. That would be the main access that would drop the traffic back onto Gerald Ford at Portola. He said they would connect over with mo�e of an internal circulation of the industrial collector street that would connect to Portola. The location where it drops back onto Gerald Ford was w�i 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 �... chosen based on conceptual plans they had seen for Desert Welis Country Ciub, so they were actually showing an alignment that would line up with what they had preliminarily shown the city. If they moved ahead with this project that would establish that position so there would be a single point of mutual access across the way. He said there might be another one at the south end. He said they were excited about the activity and expected to see some good uses coming in. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tschopp noted that pad four showed an industrial designation and asked about the range of uses that might be allowed. Mr. Smith said it would be reasonably consistent with the current service industrial designation. They weren't talking about smoke stack industries. It would range from offices to service industrial uses. Commissioner Campbell felt it was an appropriate area and would be a buffer � for whatever would be developed on the 49 acres. She was in favor and made a motion. Commissioner Finerty agreed and said she was still hoping for a Claim Jumper restaurant and seconded the motion. Commissioner Jonathan said he was also in agreement. The application before them was for a tentative parcel map at this point. He stated that he, as well as the other commissioners, would be sensitive to the kind of actual development they would actually see there. In spite of the fact that there was major traffic and it was near the freeway, it was his hope that the city's standards would be adhered to and perhaps even exceeded. The tentative parcel map looked good and he was assured by staff's opinion that the traffic would flow well. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. �.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 � It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2051 , approving PM 30042, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. PP 00-26 - ARIEL L. VALLI, Applicant Request for approval of a Precise Plan and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an 86,835 square foot self-storage facility on a 2.1-acre site on the south side of Hovley Lane 480 feet east of Corporate Way, 74-853 Hovley Lane. Mr. Smith put the site plan on display. He noted that commission received copies of the site plan. He said it was a 2.1 acre site on the south side of Hovley between the Post Office and Lino's Auto. The architecture and landscaping were preliminarily approved by Architectural Review. On the perimeter of the site there were single story buildings 12 feet high. At the center there was a larger two-story building that was 24 feet in height. The � buildings were set back varying distances from 108 feet on the west to 51 } feet in the middle, to 20 feet on the easterly building. The project had two '� access points on Hovley Lane with the westerly one being the main access with right-in and right-out only. The project met the setbacks, the height limits, coverage, landscaping, and parking. It was a permitted use in the S.I. zone and it complied with the ordinance provisions. Staff was suggesting the certification of the Negative Declaration af Environmental Impact and recommended approval of the project, subject to conditions. Commissioner Campbell asked if ARC approved the 27-foot height. Mr. Smith said yes and indicated that 30 feet was permitted in the zone. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report indicated that the easterly driveway would be gated and limited to emergency and large access only. Mr. Smith concurred. Cornmissioner Jonathan said that later in the staff report it indicated that traffic would exit from the east driveway and asked for clarification. Mr. Smith said that traffic would exit from the driveway on the east side of the buildings and then cross in front of the center building and exit from the west. Other than large vehicles that couldn't make that turn and then the office would open the gate. Commissioner Jonathan said that traffic was then exiting from the west driveway, not the east. He noted that there � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 r.. were eight parking spaces for 86,000 square feet of self storage. Staff had indicated that was consistent with the code requirement. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't know what those requirements were, but they must be pretty liberal. Mr. Smith said that self storage was just a blanket six spaces for the self-storage facility and if there was a manager's unit, two additional spaces. Commissioner Jonathan said that if it there were 10,000 square feet of storage, it would require eight spaces with a manager's unit and if it was 86,000 it would require eight spaces. Mr. Smith said that was correct and indicated that some were 146,000 square feet. Commissioner Jonathan thought that might be something to be addressed as they go through the General Plan amendment and ZORC might want to take a look at that. He felt that bigger facilities might have more people and need more parking. He said the main issue he had was there was a center building, a building on each side of the project and asked how this worked. If there were a few people going in to use their storage, if they wanted to put stuff in or take stuff out they would pull their truck up to the door he assumed. He asked if there was a pull over area. There was a driveway with a building on the right and a building on the left. He didn't see a drawing with a pull over area and asked how � traffic would flow and interact with people stopped to use their facility. Mr. Smith explained that the driveways were 30 feet wide so 10 feet on each side for someone parked. He thought it was unlikely that they would get two people in units exactly opposite, but even if they were, it would still leave a 10-foot center aisle. Commissioner Campbell said she knew exactly how it was in the facility she uses. They pull up right in front of their unit next to the door and unload or load and anyone that comes along, there was enough room to get around. There had never been any problem. She said she always wondered on the two story buildings if they had an elevator or an inside staircase for the second story. Mr. Smith said that they could ask the applicant whether this one would have an elevator or stairs. Commissioner Jonathan asked if other facilities had lane demarcations or if staff had considered the use of some kind of demarcations on the road that would indicate a pull over area versus traffic flow area. He was concerned about safety of cars loading or unloading. Mr. Smith said staff hadn't thought about that but based on his experience with these facilities, the compliance level would be quite low. He also indicated that there was an elevator in this facility. On the entrance off of Hovley, Chairperson Lopez asked if there was a right- hand turn lane into the facility itself or if cars would enter off Hovley right out ... 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 � of the right-hand lane of the street. Mr. Smith said access would be right out of the right lane of Hovley. Chairperson Lopez indicated that would mean it would be the same for exiting, too. He said that was a concern because of the speed on that road. He asked how far down the stop light was at Corporate. Mr. Smith said 480 feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff considered a deceleration lane. Chairperson Lopez noted there could be some good sized vehicles going in and out of there. His company had a storage area in another facility and at times they had a 10-wheeler delivering palettes of information to their store area and he was concerned about the access being difficult. Mr. Greenwood said that from a traffic perspective, they would always take a right-turn lane or deceleration lane. If they compare the traffic volume of this project to the Post Office directly next door, the Post Office had 10 times more traffic and probably more and didn't have the benefit of a right- turn lane. It was something that would be nice and there were other areas where they were working hard to get �ight-turn lanes, so it was one of those would be nice things but they didn't have to have it. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the down side to having it would be. Mr. Greenwood said the cost to the applicant. Commissioner Jonathan asked if from the city's perspective it would only be a benefit. Mr. Greenwood said he thought so. � He noted that Mr. Smith pointed out that the driveway was too close to the "'� Post Office to get a right-turn lane in there. Most of the improvements would end up being on the Post Office frontage and it was very difficult working with the federal government. It would put a burden on the city to have to work with them getting applications considered. Chairperson Lopez suggested considering moving the main entrance down to where the main exit is now and having the traffic flow so that there could be a right-hand lane going in there. He wasn't thinking about the amount of traffic going in there, but the size of the vehicles. He also wondered if the applicant would allow fifth wheels and boats in there and other types of recreational vehicles. That could also create a situation when trying to get into the parking area without having a right-turn lane there. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was an estimate of daily trips proposed for this facility or perhaps how many units there would be. M�. Smith said that in the environmental documentation there would be 218 weekday trips and 203 on Saturday. Commissioner Tschopp asked how many hours per day the facility would be open. Mr. Smith deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Jonathan said that the thought of moving the westerly driveway toward the east to be centered in front of the building, he asked if that was ..r 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 r.. something that would conceivably work thereby creating enough room for a right-turn lane. Mr. Smith said probably. Then they would have people making an immediate right turn in order to get back or a left turn. He said it still left that difficulty of getting large vehicles back out to the street. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that there were ways to resolve that. The building could be set back further to allow enough room to line up and make a right turn coming into a center located driveway. He wanted to know if that would flow from a traffic standpoint. Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICK WALLIS, Valli Architecture Group, 81 Columbia, Suite 200 in Aliso Viejo, said that as far as parking, it lined up right by the units. The elevators were cater corner to each other and the units were off set diagonally from each other. He said that self-storage uses were low traffic trip generators and for some of their projects in the past they had done traffic studies. Their office typically used the National Institute of � Traffic figures which gave a range and they broke it down scientifically for .017 trips per 1 ,000 square feet, so that would be about 15 trips per hour. He thought the usage usually leveled off during the weekends. He said there would be a little over 600 units. On the site plan it indicated that they were proposing to have a left-hand turn break at median and asked for clarification about the right turn only. Mr. Smith said that per condition number 13 from Public Works, they didn't entertain left-turn movements at that point. Regarding the slow down right-turn lane, Mr. Wallis suggested flipping the whole project on its axis. He thought that would provide the solution of having the right-turn in and out. There would be a longer area of curb. Commissioner Jonathan asked how the tratfic would flow on the inside if they still retained a one-way circulation. i Mr. Wallis said it would just be reversed. He pointed out that the access gate would be controlled by the office. He also indicated that `.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 1 � � access to the second floor wouid be restricted to persons with units only. Chairperson Lopez asked how many units would be on the second floor. Mr. Wallis said that as part of their package they had a unit mix plan and he didn't have it broken down and tabulated from floor to floor, he just had the total. Typically there were more units on the second floor because they were smaller. Consequently, there were also more hallways. The smaller stuff could get into the elevator for those smaller units. Commissioner Campbell felt this facility was more organized than the one she uses and there was also one on Joni Drive which had the gate right on the doorway. Here they could just pull right in and wouldn't hinder traffic. M�. Wallis agreed that there was plenty of room to stack cars. Typically the parking stalls were outside the gate for people with inquiries. Once they had a unit, they would have access. He felt eight stalls were ' adequate for that use for those ten minute visits to find out what might � be available. Commissioner Tschopp said that during peak periods there would be an average of 15 trips. Mr. Wallis concurred. He said that gate access was usually from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily. If someone already had a unit, they already had that access. Chairperson Lopez asked if the applicant had a facility like this already in operation that had two stories and elevators. Mr. Wallis said yes, his office has done 30 to 40 of them last year. Chairperson Lopez said he had limited experience with two-story facilities. He has used several that were one story units. He was concerned about several people needing access to their upstairs units and if they parked in front of the units below to go in because there were only six parking spaces and sorneone � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 +�.► then pulled up and wanted to use the unit downstairs, he asked how could he get to his unit if there was a car parked in front of it. Mr. Wallis said that typically if someone was in front of your unit that person would be back within five or ten minutes at the most. There could be a dolly full of stuff being moved in or out. He said the average stay was typically 20 minutes. That was after all the units were occupied. The way the market has been going on some of their projects, they are full within six months to one year. He said he just completed a project in Glendale. Glendale did request that they mark parking stalls along the outside and maintain the 30-foot driveway. That left plenty of room for the Fire Department access and parking on one side. That project was about 136,000 square feet. Chairperson Lopez asked if the proposed facility would allow any storage of recreational vehicles or boats along the back driveway. Mr. Wallis said outside storage along the channel would not be allowed. Storage had to be inside. There wouldn't be enough room available � along the channel because of the turning radius. Mr. Smith indicated the Fire Department would be opposed. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell said that there was no gate on Hovley so access would be easier. Whenever she visits the facility she uses, there wasn't a line of cars waiting. She was in favor of the proposal and moved for approval. Commissioner Finerty concurred with Commissioner Campbell. She didn't believe based on the 218 weekday trips that a deceleration lane would be required. If it was required any where it should be at the Post Office. Commissioner Jonathan commented that the Post Office was a nightmare, but they didn't have control over it. Staff indicated there wasn't a down side, only an up side to having a deceleration lane and he thought it was simply a matter of moving the main access down to the east side of the project and everything �.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMM{SSION MARCH 20, 2001 ; � � else would still flow the same if they just flipped it. He thought there was no reason not to do a deceleration lane. Travel on Hovley easterly was difficult. People go fast, there was Carter Elementary School, there was the soccer park which had a very good deceleration and acceleration lane with right-turn in and right-turn out access and it worked. He didn't see a down side to it. They weren't taking space away from the applicant's buildings. He thought it could prevent stoppage on Hovley, which was something to be avoided. He was in favor of a deceleration lane and flipping the access from the west side of the project to the east. Mr. Drell explained that a deceleration lane would either take room away from the building or landscaping. Right-of-way would have to come out of one or the other. If that was a requirement, the commission would have to say where they wanted to take it from. Commissioner Jonathan asked what would happen to the sidewalk. Mr. Drell said that with a deceleration lane, the sidewalk would be pushed back 12 feet unless it was eliminated. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the sidewalk we�e eliminated, how much would be needed. Mr. Drell said that the sidewalk was eight feet, but he didn't think they wanted to remove it. Commissioner Jonathan said he's never seen anyone walking on Hovley, but he respected that. Mr. Drell } said that Marriott Timeshare folks walk on their side. Mr. Greenwood said that � it had been quite an issue with students at Carter School having a path on the south side. Although it was a limited number, three or four students, it meant a lot to those students and their parents. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that there would be a down side then because they would lose either landscaping or building area. Commissioner Campbell felt the driveway was in the right area, because people going to the Post Office were slowing down already to go in instead of having the proposed project's access further down and they would pick up speed. She didn't think it would be as much of an impact in the proposed location. Mr. Drell said that when the commission was hearing 15 trips per peak hour or 200 trips per day that was a two-way trip. So there were 7.5 customers per hour or 100 customers per day. Commissioner Tschopp didn't think the day trips during the peak hours warranted additional expense on the applicant or conditions. At the same time he heard the applicant say that to flip the entrances wouldn't be a problem and � if that would in any way alleviate or in any way help alleviate future problems , � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 � at the Post Office, he thought they should look at it. But he didn't have a problem with ihe way the project was proposed. The problem wasn't the applicant, it was the Post Office. Chairperson Lopez said that he had a couple of concerns. One was safety on Hovley. He spent a lot of time riding and walking that particular street and traffic moved along at a fairly rapid speed and traffic seemed to be increasing. The facility not warranting a lot of trips was one thing that was swaying him. It was a limited number and he didn't think he'd ever pulled in front of a storage area and had to wait any amount of time to get in. They really just got in and were usually the only one there and rarely saw anyone else. He would rather see it flipped and rather see a slow down right lane on the facility itself, but he was also concerned about the landscaping in the front. He said that bicycles couldn't be ridden on the street. They had to ride on the sidewalk. They needed the sidewalk and the landscaping. Based on that he would be in favor and asked for commission action. Action: � It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion ca�ried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2052, approving PP 00-26, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. CUP 01-03 - VERIZON; 02 WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, Applicant Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of a 65' high wireless communication tower on property located at 77-850 Country Club Drive. Mr. Alvarez said that the request was for a 65-foot mono palm. Pictures were distributed to the commission in their packets that described the location. This was the retention basin behind Desert Country Plaza, the 20-acre commercial master plan that backed up to I-10 and had frontage on Country Club and the newly created street Desert Country Circfe. In the staff report he described the applicant's proposal. The location was about 60 feet west of the existing 65-foot mono palm also along the retention basin. The applicant's lease area +�.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 `£ � � was a 20 by 30 space. There were two existing date palms as part of a grouping of nine. These two would be relocated to other areas and this was the new lease area for Verizon. He showed the location of the existing equipment shelter and eight-foot block wa{I which enclosed Nextel's existing approval. He showed a photo of the existing installation and the grove of natural palms. When heading east, the last two natural palms would be relocated and that's where the proposed mono palm would be installed. There was a couple of issues that needed to be addressed. First is the equipment shelter. ARC on February 27 reviewed the project and unanimously approved the project with a condition that the equipment shelter be lowered two feet or that the pad on which the equipment would sit would be lowered two feet. They were trying to achieve a full screening of the equipment shelter. The proposed equipment shelter was 10 feet 6 inches. The existing equipment shelter used by Nextel was an eight-foot block wall as required by the ordinance. It substantially screened the equipment which was ten feet. He stated that the applicant filed an appeal of that condition and that would be deferred to the City Council. He said they were looking for a recommendation , from the Planning Commission to move along before the City Council. Staff's position was basically that they have seen how much an eight-foot wall would screen a ten-foot structure and it substantially screens it. It was also behind the existing shopping center and backs up to the railroad and that would be taken up with the City Council. The second issue to be addressed was the digital data dish. The applicant wanted a four-foot dish installed an the mono palm itself. Staff's position was that this dish should be removed and wasn't camouflaged and it detracted from the somewhat realistic appearance of the mono palm. As a condition of approval, they required the removal of the dish and required the installation of an eight-foot block wall around the shelter with a smooth stucco finish to match the shopping center and Nextel's installation. In terms of ordinance requirements, the only issue which had arisen was the separation requirements between towers. He noted that a recent amendment allowed the commission to waive the separation requirement when stealth design was used. In this instance the applicant was using an artificial mono palm which staff felt successfully camouflaged the antennas and warranted waiving the separation requirement. Mr. Alvarez indicated that there were conditions of approval which staff felt addressed the issues described. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to conditions. The project was a Class 3 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes. . 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 r..� Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. HANK HOWENSTEIN, 9090 Calle Escorial in Desert Hot Springs, addressed the commission. He thanked the commission for the opportunity to address them and also thanked staff for their efforts. He felt the issues were not great and appreciated the recommendation of approval by staff and the furtherance of that approval by ARC. The issue before them was the separation from the existing mono palm by Nextel which was only 60 feet to the east, however, with the change in zone text in Palm Desert, with the Planning Commission's approval it is permitted to be in that distance. The other issue which was dramatically shown was the nature of the equipment building and the surrounding block wall. He said they have no difficulty in increasing the height of that wall to eight feet. They had no difficulty in changing the finish from slump stone to stucco coating finish that would match the building and selecting a color to match the color of the shopping center. He said they looked to find equipment buildings that were lower in � height and were unable to find any at this time. Therefore, they would also agree to paint the color of the equipment building the same color as the wall, which meant the two would sort of blend into one another. One of the difficulties with Nextel, his equipment building and the existing wall, was that the building was a darker, gravely texture which made it a stark standout against the block wall, but if the two were the same color they would have a great deal of similarity. He hoped that the commission would recommend to the City Council that they allow them to go forward with a 10'6" building. The only issue they had that he thought was significant was the requirement that they remove the dish. Here they were getting into an issue of technology and there were only two companies that currently use the digital dish system. The other carriers continued to use land lines, but the technology was moving toward the digital dish. The reason was that the digital dish was much more efficient, faster, it carried a greater vo(ume of calls, it was less susceptible to break down in the event of an emergency like an earthquake and produced a much higher quality of service and the cost per transmission of call was about one-tenth with a digital dish. The alternative to a digital dish was land lines and throughout the valley those were probably all fiber optics. While they were fast, they weren't as fast as transmission by digital dish. The digital dish would face north � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNIIVG COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 � � � so that from the heavily traveled Country Club it wouldn't be seen in its robust fullness of four feet, but rather as an inter�upted hemisphere. Looking at it from the other direction, to the north, it would be tough to spot as they were coming down. He urged that the commission approve the project with the modifications of conditions 10 and 1 1 . Commissioner Finerty noted that the ARC minutes of February 27 stated that Mr. Hank Howenstein, the applicant's representative, while he could not answer without verification, he stated that he had found some new equipment which had a six-foot height, rather than an eight-foot height, which would allow them to lower the building height. Mr. Howenstein stated that was for externally mounted equipment, not the equipment that going into the building. He said he didn't know the technology. In locating one of these in the city park in the city of Riverside, they were able to find lower equipment. But there they had a different situation because it was out and exposed and had a greater cooling capacity whereas here these units generated a great deal of heat ; and the larger they are, the better they were able to dissipate that heat. � .r� Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification that Mr. Howenstein was saying that they needed the 10'6" height. Mr. Howenstein concurred. Commissioner Campbell asked if the dish could be moved up any higher to camouflage it a bit by the palms. Mr. Howenstein said that was a good question, but he didn't know the answer. He indicated he didn't know what the level of separation had to be between the antenna and the dish. He said he would ask that question for future reference. Commissioner Tschopp asked how big the data dish would be on the palm. Mr. Howenstein said it would be four feet in diameter. When looking at it from the south, they would really only see one foot of that on either side of the pole. The pole was a little greater than 28 inches. They vary in size between 20 and 28 inches depending upon what they � 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 �.. need to meet building requirements, so if they subtracted that from the 48, it would leave about one foot on either side of the pole when looking at it from the south. Chairperson Lopez indicated that the applicant wanted the commission to adjust conditions 10 and 1 1 regarding the wall height and the dish. Mr. Howenstein said they had no difficulty with the wall height at eight feet so the only condition they were cancerned with was condition 10, which would allow the building to go as originally designed at 10'6" and to eliminate number 1 1 . Chairperson Lopez noted that the staff recommendation was to move ahead with the application with the current conditions of approval. He noted ihat ihe applicant would have the right to appeal any decision to the City Council. Mr. Howenstein concurred. He said the commission's option tonight was to adopt staff's recommendation and move forward as it is or if � they wanted to make specific comments on either of the two requests which he made. Commissioner Finerty asked if the ordinance addressed whether or not there could be dishes. Mr. Alvarez said no, it was currently silent. Commissioner Campbell noted that there were other towers in the city now with dishes all over them. Mr. Alvarez said not that he was aware of. Nextel's site to the east was allowed a temporary dish for 90 days to allow them to secure a land line. Commissioner Campbell said she wasn't talking about the palm trees, but existing towers that had dishes attached all over them. Mr. Drel! said that communication towers in general had dishes on them. Mr. Alvarez said those weren't the mono palms. Commissioner Campbell said that they had dishes attached to those other towers which were more of an eyesore. Mr. Drell said that the next application that would be coming to the commission was going to be a mono palm in the city's soccer field. The explanation he heard from the Sprint representative was that it had to do with the distance between their land line connection to a phone and the palm. Based on the distance they had, they also wanted a dish. There would be a project next door, 15 to 20 feet away from them, and at that point in time when they did have close proximity to a land line, they said it wouldn't be a problem connecting to it. It was a function of distance. The more that were transferring through the line, the �.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 � � more interference. Commissioner Campbell said that staff recommended that it be camouflaged, but she felt the way it faced to the north, people from the freeway would not be able to see the dish o� that the palm tree was artificial. Mr. Drell said that he also assumed that the dish could be painted in the same brown tone as the tree trunk. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty concurred with ARC's condition that the equipment shelter be lowered by two feet. She noted in the minutes that it was a 7-0 vote and they felt fairly strong about it. With regard to the dish, they worked really hard on the ordinance and they wanted to make these towers as aesthetically pleasing as possible. That was why they came up with the mono palm and it had to be clustered and she believed that the dish negated that. So she also concurred with staff's condition that the dish be removed. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't have a problem with the 10'6" because � of the location. He wasn't sure ARC was aware of the technical difficulties and apparent impossibilities of getting the equipment into an 8'6" area. He was willing to live with that. He also felt the separation was acceptable for that area and he thought it would be a huge step backward for them to reduce their standards. They worked hard to get them to the point where if they were going to be looking at these, then at least they had gotten them to the point that they were somewhat camouflaged by looking like trees. Now to put up some metal within eyesight would be a huge step backwards and he would be vehemently opposed that. He was in complete concurrence with the staff report, which would mean deleting condition number 10 but retaining number 1 1 and he was prepared to move for approval on that basis. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Jonathan and said she would second the motion. Commissioner Tschopp concurred but noted there were exceptions to the rules. A data dish that small facing Interstate 10 he didn't feel would be a disruption to anyone in Palm Desert and most people going 90 mph down Interstate 10 wouldn't notice it. So he felt there were exceptions. � Commissioner Campbell felt that approval would be setting a precedent. � � 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 �.. Commissioner Tschopp said he didn't disagree, but felt they would be seeing those anyway in the future just like they have seen the proliferation of dishes on people's homes or in their backyards. Commissioner Jonathan said they wouldn't see them if the city didn't allow them. Commissioner Tschopp said they would see those types of appeals anyway and this one he felt as far as exceptions go facing Interstate 10 with no impact on residential or even commercial areas and didn't see it as a big problem. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that the dish was four feet wide and would be clearly visible from all directions. Even from the rear it protruded on both sides. Chairperson Lopez said he agreed. He didn't have a problem with the height of the building considering where it was located. He did have a problem with the dish and while that might be the wave of the future, somehow they would have to come up with an ordinance change or revision to address this element in the future and how they could be hidden. Under the current situation he would be in favor of the recommendation to eliminate condition number 10. He called for the vote. � Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). Move by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2053, approving CUP 01-03, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). D. Case No. CUP 00-14 - RHL DESIGN GROUP, INC., for MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Applicant Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the remodel and conversion of existing service bays into a 2,479 square foot convenience store and the construction of a 1 ,152 square foot self-service car wash facility located at the southwest corner of Country Club Drive and Washington Street, 78-005 Country Club Drive. �.. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 Mr. Alvarez noted that the proposal consisted of three items. As described in the staff report, the request was to convert the three existing service bays for the Mobil Station at Washington and Country Club into a 2,479 square foot convenience store. There was an existing canopy which would not be modified except for adding signage. The�e was a 1 ,152 square foot car wash facility. He pointed out the location of a vacant pad which was part of the larger site purchased by Mobil. He noted that Planning Commission approved a nearby self-storage facility and was considering a lube facility which was removed from that approval due to the inadequate buffering and landscaping along Washington. In terms of architecture, there would be the remodel into the convenience store maintaining the southwestern architectural theme. Minor modifications were made which included the store front remodel and some architectural detailing. The convenience store was 14'6" and there was a new architectural element which would extend to about 19 feet over the entrance of the convenience store. The car wash facility would maintain the same southwest architectural theme as the convenience store. The convenience store was 16'6", all within the height limits of the Planned Commercial zone. The city and the applicant worked hard to come up with a landscape concept and design which would adequately provide significant landscaping near the entrance to screen the car wash facility and a whole new make over would occur for the site in terms of landscaping. The site would provide 18 off street parking spaces. The convenience store required ten and the additional eight spaces would be primarily used by customers of the self- service car wash facility when they needed to finish drying the vehicle or use the air/water/vacuum facility. Staff believed that eight additional spaces were sufficient to meet the self-service facility. Obviously the ten spaces could be accommodated for the convenience store. In commission packets, they also got copies of the signage that Architectural Commission approved. Basically it allowed a new sign over the convenience store entrance, a new sign on the back side of the convenience store building reading "Mobil," a new sign on the car wash facility, and each of those were included in the plans. In terms of setbacks, height, coverage, and parking, the project met all the Zoning Ordinance requirements for the Planned Commercial Disirict. On February 27, 2001 , the Architectural Review Commission voted unanimously to approve the architecture, signage, and landscaping subject to conditions. Those conditions were on page four of the staff report and had been addressed. The project was a Class 3 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes and he recommended approval. � � 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 +�.. Commissioner Campbell noted that there was an Interoffice Memorandum from the Department of Building & Safety. Item two required that disabled access and parking needed to be closest to the entry of the store without passing behind other vehicles and that the ramp was not in an acceptable location. Mr. Alvarez stated that those were building code issues which would be addressed prior to the issuance of a permit, but he believed that they were asking that the handicapped parking stalls be moved to the closest point to the store so that they weren't asking someone that was disabled to walk across or behind parking stails which might have vehicles backing up. Commissioner Campbell also noted that there was a memo from Deputy Conley. Mr. Alvarez said those were recommendations by the Sheriff's Department in terms of safety. They could be made conditions if the commission wished to explicitly outline them. Commissioner Campbell said not necessarily make them conditions, she just wanted to make su�e they were taken into consideration. Mr. Alvarez concurred. Chairperson Lopez asked if there would be monument signs on the street. Mr. Alvarez said yes. There would be one on Washington and one on Country � Club. It was currently existing but redesigned. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was one on the structure also which had been reduced. Mr. Alvarez said that there was existing signage on the front side. They just identified the name of the plaza. That would be removed and a new sign on the wall would be implemented. That was the Mobil sign. Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. LEE COITZ, the Project Architect with RHL Design Group, stated that he was representing Exxon Mobil. He said that they worked very hard to comply with all the requirements of the city. He felt that they had a good project at a gateway into the city with their landscaping and cleaning up that corner which was now fairly void of plants and they were also landscaping the island on Country Club. The issue of screening the car wash had been addressed. Th�e car wash was quite a distance from the street to begin with and had a great deal of landscaping to buffer the view from there. The landscaping also screened the canopy which was a flat structure, but it also mitigated that impact. The current building had three service bays in it but they weren't used. It was now being used as storage. Making it into a ... 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 � convenience store would enhance the whole corner and bring some revenue to the company, but right now it was an eyesore facility and they wanted to bring it up to standards. One thing not mentioned in the report, the stacking lane for the car wash, the serpentine area behind some plantings, so the cars that were in stack lanes (four or five cars) would be able to get it. They wouldn't be seen from the street because of the landscaping. Plus when the development to the west developed, that side of the building was also landscaped. There was four-sided architecture here. He said it had been a pleasure to work with staff to get to this point. Comments regarding the ADA parking access could be worked out with the Building Department once they received approval. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan said that he was at the Architectural Review ' Commission meeting when they considered this matter and they went through � this with a fine tooth comb as they do every project. He said he has been at a couple of ARC meetings and he impressed with those individuals and all the time and care they take with every small detail and as a result, he thought the Planning Commission's job was made easier. At this point he thought it was a wonderful improvement to the existing buildings that are out there and he was prepared to move for approval. Commissioner Finerty concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. She felt that the significant improvement had to do with the landscaping and she was really looking forward to seeing that. Commissioner Campbell stated that she also concurred and if that was a motion, she would second it. Commissioner Tschopp said he had nothing to add and agreed with previous comments. Chairperson Lope2 also agreed and thought it would be a tremendous improvement to that corner. He has utilized that facility for gas, but it would ¢ � � � 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 �.. be a tremendous improvement on that corner. If it looked like the drawings they were shown, it would be wonderful. He called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2054, approving CUP 00-14, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. CUP 94-2 AMENDMENT #1 - MICHAEL CASTELLI, Applicant Request for approval of an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to allow the 1 ,308 square foot expansion (880 square feet of dining, 428 square feet of office) to an existing 3,900 square foot restaurant at 73-098 Highway 1 1 1 (Andreino's1. � Mr. Drell said that staff would be recommending a two-week continuance based on a request by the applicant. The staff report described the request. He said that this was an example of a successful attempt to try to implement the recommendations of the Core Commercial Plan and Palma Village Plan relative to rehabilitation and expansion of businesses on the north side of Highway 11 1 . Unfortunately, the city had never caught up with them in terms of helping to implement the plan around them. They were working on it but hadn't gotten there yet. In terms of this application, they were still going to have to ►ely on contracting for offsite spaces. The applicant has gone through this before. With this application he would have to go to 40. He noted that there was a letter received from Palm Desert Pet Hospital where he now contracts for 13 spaces. The vet wasn't proposing to renew that contract, but it was his understanding that Mr. Castelli would contract for all 40 spaces with the bank. That was a condition of approval that he would have to meet. Long range, parking was to be provided by the extension of the rear parking plan that would extend from the existing Walgreens parking lot. Another question that came up in another letter had to do with loading and how the expansion would affect loading. The plan included maintaining a 20-foot wide space between the building and the property line to allow for a loading access to the rear of the kitchen. So they would still have direct off the alley loading ... 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 for the facility with the expansion. The applicant requested a two-week continuance and Mr. Drell said that staff was prepared to recommend approval at that time. Commissioner Finerty asked if this would have an opportunity to go to ARC before it came back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Drell said yes and explained that it went to ARC once and they made some suggestions on enhancements to the elevations and he would be going back next Tuesday. Commissioner Finerty said it was really hard to envision the improvements they were planning to make. Mr. Drell asked if she meant in terms of the elevations or the site plan. Commissioner Finerty said it was difficult to determine how it would took as a finished product. Mr. Drell said that as proposed it would be a big square block. That was not deemed acceptable. Hopefully when the plan was fully implemented it would be facing a public parking lot, so ARC was requiring that he add architecture to that back end which was more appropriate for an elevation viewed by the public. As proposed in the plan it was a big block and they were relying on the landscaping in front to mitigate the appearance of what was a blank, square � structure. They would be seeing the revisions next Tuesday before ARC. � There were some suggestions of creating arches in the back and coordinating landscaping with the arches and changing windows. Commissioner Finerty asked if they would have some pretty pictures to show what the finished product would look like. Mr. Drell concurred. He said they would have a modified elevation when it came back. Chairpe�son Lopez o ened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. The applicant was not present. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. The public hearing was left open and Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty said that she would move for a two-week continuance. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he thought Commissioner Finerty's point was very well made. He for one would have a difficult time approving anything when he had no idea what it looked like. He would certainly like to see what this project would look like built out. He was also interested to see how the interim parking arrangement would work, as well as the projected long-term parking for the site. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Tschopp stated for the record that he would be abstaining from this vote. � � 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 r.. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing CUP 94-2 Amendment #1 to April 3, 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained). F. Case Nos. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, App�icant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; a General Plan Amendment from Hillside Planned Residential to Park; a Change of Zone from Hillside Planned Residential, Drainage (HPR, D) to Open Space, Drainage (OS, D); and a Precise Plan of Design to allow the construction of a 27- acre park with a parking lot, restroom, picnic pavilions, tot lot, basketball court, volleyball court, dog run area, multi-use trails and other related facilities at 72-500 Thrush Road, APNs 628- 050-002, 628-050-018, 628-150-001 , 628-260-058. r. Mr. Winklepleck explained that the current site was vacant with a few scattered shrubs and trees. The site had been used for illegal dumping. There were quite a few people that used the site to walk their dogs. There had also been some indication that it has been used as a homeless encampment. The City bought the 27 acres last year with the intent to keep it primarily as open space to provide an open space park and also a connection as part of the Cahuilla Hills hillside area to try to maintain the hillsides as vacant as possible. On the south side of the project the site was crossed by South Cliff Road. That was approximately 900 feet south of the Thrush Road Bridge. It accessed the six existing hillside homes and five undeveloped lots. The area west/ southwest of the bridge had historically been used for parking and easy off road access onto the site. The City was able to obtain palm logs from a grower in Indio. They delineated the area to try and stop some of the off road vehicles. There were additional palm logs to use to delineate the entire park. He said it was not the intent of the city to put up fencing o� walls as that isn't in accordance with the city's vision of the hillsides. Mr. Winklepleck said the site was 27 acres and the current design for the open space park included a 36-space parking lot, a �estroom, picnic pavilions, tot lot, volleyball court, basketball court, a green area, a dog run area, and multi use trails. This was the suggestion of the Parks and Recreation Commission and it represented the .r.. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 � �Il most intense proposal. He said that upon meeting with the adjacent property owners at Indian Creek Villas who represented the majority of population in the area, there wasn't an apparent desire to have any active facilities. Typically at these types of ineetings people give a list of what they want to see like basketball courts and tot lots. There didn't seem to be a lot of interest in any of those things. Based on that, staff was recommending that they look at this as phase one. Phase one would essentially include the parking lot, a small restroom, a picnic pavilion, and the onsite multi use trails. The park was designed to be used as a stand alone facility with the onsite trails. It was also intended to serve as a trail head for a future trail connection system into ihe Cahuilla Hills area. This was important in staff's mind and staff has been working with BLM, the Department of Fish and Game and Department of Fish and Wildlife with the closures of all the trails that people hike on during the season for the bighorn sheep lambing. Staff's contention with BLM was that we would provide an area for people to hike and walk their dogs. The u{timate goal would be to connect this trail firstly with the Cahuilla Hills Park, if possible with the Art Smith Trail, and eventually with the Bump and Grind Trail that comes out of Rancho Mirage. Those were long-term goals. Tonight they were just looking at the park site. As far as the issues that typically come up � with a park site, that included lighting. There was no lighting proposed at this site other than needed security lighting at the restroom facility. It was proposed to be a dawn to dusk facility with no after hours activities. Staff based the design of this project primarily on that of Ironwood Park. That was the model for this park. Ironwood was 14 acres. This one would be 27 acres. As proposed with the phase one, it was less intense than Ironwood. Noise was also an issue that came up. Staff believed that with a lack of active facilities like basketball, volleyball, etc., there would be much less of a chance for loud noise. But there was always a chance that people would gather and make noise. Noise levels should not and typically did not in any of the city parks exceed the maximum residential requirements. As such, they would have the same requirements at this park as at other parks with no amplified music. As a park they would have it patrolled more often by the Sheriff's Department and they would have a little more control than they do now. The same �ules would apply to this park as other parks. No alcohol, no overnight camping, and no amplified music would be allowed at this site. Traffic was also brought up. In studying the transportation engineer's guides, there was a wide range of traffic figures they used for parks. It warns not to use them too strictly. Staff looked at primarily Ironwood Park and the amount of use there. The primary usage at parks was weekend mornings and occasionally � 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 �. on some evenings. Ironwood Park had a tot lot area and from what he has seen families primarily were gathering there. At this site staff would anticipate something similar, but as opposed to tots there would be people coming to use it to hike and walk their dogs. Staff was anticipating Saturday and Sunday mornings as the peak hours. With the 36-space parking lot, they didn't anticipate a lot of people. The request was also to change the Hillside Planned Residential General Plan designation to Park designation. This would be done to reflect the current and future use of the site. The Conservation Open Space Recreation Element of the General Plan would also be revised to include this was a designated park. The change of zone would be from a Hillside Planned Residential designation to a more appropriate Open Space, Drainage designation. It would also more properly identify and include it as open space in the city. As identified in the current Hillside Planned Residential zoning, the use was currently allowed. The current use could include up to 81 units on this site, approximately three units per acre. Staff felt an open space park was much less intense a proposal. With the phase one recommendation by staff, there wasn't a lot of project data to provide. The site size is 27 acres and 36 spaces for parking. The building height although it is 18 feet max, staff has �, investigated some prefabricated, split face restroom structures that they could install here. They were approximately 13 feet in height and that was to the ridge. If approved, staff would work with residents and Architectural Commission to see if there was something that needed to be done to further disguise it. He said that staff has consulted with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the use of dogs on this site and access of dogs up into the trails and access as it relates to the bighorn sheep recovery plan. He explained that the city likes this site as a dog use site as it is located in a fairly developed area adjacent to the channel with quite a few units across the channel and some homes between it and the more sensitive areas. The City requested a letter from the Department of Fish and Game but it had not yet been received. He said there were a couple of letters that were received. The first was from Richard and Marilyn Fromme. It appeared to staff that their letter was more indicative of the proposal of the trail use, a separate project staff would have to run through the commission and it mentioned rocks being thrown at their property and that would be addressed at that time. Their second concern related to the palm logs along the perimeter and termites. Staff spoke to a District Conservationist from the Natural Resources Conservation Service. They were basically the professionals that work with date growers. Spencer Knight from the city spoke with them and he indicated that the palms were monocots versus other trees which are dicots. Because r... 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 � 1 F � of the carbon and nitrogen ratio, typically termites didn't like monocots. If there was a concern, staff could look at treating the palm logs prior to installation just to ensure that there weren't any. The next letter was from Dorie Cree. It was a fairly long letter. Her primary concern was the location of the facilities. He said he told her that the plan was drawn essentially where the current main activity takes place. They attempted to tuck some of the parking area behind an existing hillside that sits in the middle of the site and the restroom and picnic pavilion. City staff was willing to look at moving the location. There was a lot of area to work with. Moving it north of the bridge was a concern. Putting in a bathroom or picnic pavilion away from where it would get the most visibility was a concern because of loiterers and vandalism. Staff was willing to consider other locations. He noted that Ms. Cree owns 30 acres of which 15 or 20 acres were directly adjacent to the park to the west. The last letter was from Mr. and Mrs. Aplet, who also owned property adjacent to the park to the west, but a little farther north. There were quite a few concerns and he would try to answer them. 1 ) They felt the city was proceeding with the proposed park development without appropriate environrnental reviews. He said he was assuming that he was talking about the temporary parking area that was installed. As such, basically � what they did was try to keep off road vehicles off the site. If Mr. and Mrs. Aplet were speaking about the proposed project, staff had gone through the standard CEQA requirements. 2) Insufficient review of potential traffic hazards from increased vehicular traffic ac�oss Thrush Road Bridge. Based on the city's experience with a similar facility, Ironwood Park, and Public Works review, the increases in traffic were minimal and staff felt that the traffic had been sufficiently reviewed and no change was required. 3) Inadequate review of drainage for the park design. Mr. Winklepleck said that the majority of the park would remain natural and the current drainage pattern wauld remain other than where the parking or building area was developed. There was a condition that any work on the site be approved through the Public Works Department and they would apply any necessary drainage requirements. Number 4 addressed the temporary parking lot. He said it was a temporary measure to limit off road vehicle access. 5) No. provision for adequate vehicular access and/or control to the adjoining properties on the west border of the proposed park. Possible violation of CEQA due to noise, dust and traffic that did not now burden these properties. Mr. Winklepleck said that he assumed that they were talking about people accessing their own property. According to the plan, access was allowed on the west and at the north side of the property from the CVWD access road. Based on that staff felt that adequate access ' ; ..ri 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 �.► had been provided to the property. 6) Possible change in the nature of the existing easement across their property from public to private. Again, Mr. Winklepleck said that had more to do with the trail project than the current project. It was the city's intent in the future to use this site as a trail head eventually. But until they acquired permits and other approvals from BLM, etc., and they have identified that the trail would be a project, when that was done it would be a more appropriate time to address this. Number 7 was regarding failure of adequate boundary identification, design or construction of the park. It talked about preventing folks from accessing 7heir property, avoiding potentially contentious or injurious confrontations between park users and property owners, personal liability exposure of the adjoining owners, preventing the unwanted accumulation of animal dung feces on the adjoining properties, guarding against animal attacks, preventing damage to environmentally sensitive hillsides by increased vehicular, pedestrian or animal traffic that may be using the park, and reducing the likelihood of acts of vandalism against private property. Mr. Winklepleck said that the palm logs would serve as a demarcation. It was also staff's intent to adequately sign the property to identify the park boundary. Other than putting up a wall or fence or something to separate people from this site to other sites or private property � and other than signing it, there wasn't a guarantee that the city could give that someone wouldn't walk on someone else's property. If this is a park, there would be patrols by the Sheriff's Department. Mr. Drell said that another good example was Cahuilla Park which had picnic areas and a fairly active use of the tennis courts. It has been in existence almost since city incorporation. There were houses around it and a church. Once they provided adequate patrol, they didn't have any of the sorts of problems as described in #7. It has been a very quiet, fairly good neighbor for the surrounding uses. Mr. Winklepleck said that item 8 said that any failure of the City of Palm Desert to provide adequate or sufficient patrol of the park to prevent vandalism, alcohol consumption, loud or noisy parties or any other activities that would disturb the serenity naturally afforded residents of the area protected by the Hillside Planned Residential District provisions. He said that was partially where the Sheriff's Department comes in and where if there is an issue, people call the Sheriff's Department and there was a learning curve. People were using that site as something other than an open space park right now. There was evidence of that and evidence of beer drinking. It was something that needed to be patrolled and something that could be handled as it has been handled in the past. Staff was comfortable with that. Mr. Drell said that under the Hillside Planned Residential District this property could accommodate up to 60-70 residences. �.. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 ; An alternative or more conventional land use under the current zoning would be a bunch of homes that would bring in all these same impacts to a far greater degree. Mr. Winklepleck felt #9 had been addressed. There was no lighting proposed except for the restroom facility. It would be a dawn to dusk park. Any park design or construction that would allow the connection of electrical utilities in any manner not fully in accordance with the current city ordinances. Mr. Winklepleck asked the Aplets to expand on that issue to better answer their question. Any other result of the park development or construction that could adversely affect their level of peace, tranquility, or privacy now afforded residents in the area. Again, Mr. Winklepleck said that under the current standards staff felt a much more intense project could go here. The change of zone and change of general plan insured a less intense project would be developed. 12) Any element of park design and/or construction not preserving the intent and purpose of the Hillside Planned Residential provisions. The park essentially met those provisions. In some cases with walls and fences. That would be in direct conflict with our Hillside Planned Residential Ordinance. He said that they try to avoid walls in the hillside areas. : Commissioner Finert noted that on a e three of the A lets letter it noted an � Y P 9 P address on Florida and asked Mr. Winklepleck to show her where the Aplet's property was located. Mr. Winklepleck did so. Commissioner Campbell asked if Indian Creek Villas were condominiums. Mr. Winklepleck said they were condominiums. As he understood it, quite a few of them were rented out. They have an association and staff inet with them. It was a fairly nice project that had been remodeled within the last five years. They were individually owned. Mr. Drell said there were four units per building and typically an owner would own the whole building. Commissioner Campbell asked if it was considered low income housing. Mr. Drell said that it practically functioned that way since the rents were quite reasonable, but it wasn't controlled in any way by the City. Rents were set by the market. Commissioner Jonathan asked what Mr. Winklepleck thought about the Thrush Street Bridge and how it was angled. He asked if the increased usage would mandate some kind upgrading of the bridge itself. Mr. Winklepleck said that speaking with Public Works, the bridge handled residential traffic now and staff didn't anticipate a lot of people walking across the bridge. There might be a few, but probably no more than now. For vehicular access, that wasn't � an issue. One issue that had been brought up by Ms. Cree that didn't show 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 �.. up in the letter was the issue of the CVWD frontage road along Paim Valley Storm Channel and dust and additional traffic. The city was willing to look at that and willing to look at treating it with some sort of asphalt and chip seal similar to what was at BLM to try and hide it instead of using the standard black asphalt. Or they could look at some sort of binder that seemed to work on a fairly high used access path to maintain the natural look and keep the dust down. They were willing to look at that. It was a CVWD access road and the city would have to obtain approval from them. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the bridge was wide enough for two-way passage. Mr. Winklepleck said that he has been out there approximately 30 times in the last 15-20 days and there had been a few occasions when he has gone by car. On a bikepath there was a small walking area on one side, but it was adequate for vehicular traffic. He guessed that it was no less than a standard two-way drive aisle at maybe 24 feet plus. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the parking lot was dedicated for use of the park or if that was going to be in some way shared with the church. Mr. Winklepleck said the intent of the parking lot was to be used by the park. Like any public parking at any parks, if there was something going on at the College, we get people parking at the Civic Center. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a pending agreement between the � church and the City for use of that parking lot. Mr. Drell said no, it was a public parking lot. Like any other parking lot, the public could park there. It would be illegal for the city to give any particular rights to the church any different than any other member of the public. As members of the public, people that go to that church would have the same right to park there as any other member of the public. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was a concern of staff if that occurred. He asked if the parking lot was large enough and if there was going to be an over demand for that parking lot and if the bridge's capacity would then be exceeded. Mr. Drell said he didn't think the bridge's capacity was a function of the number of trips that go over it. Commissioner Jonathan felt that it had limited capacity in terms of the amount of traffic it could handle. Mr. Drell said that was correct, but he didn't think it was anything they could control. If it was congested, people would go slower. It was not a concern at this time. At certain high periods like Easter it was conceivable that as members of the public the people of the church might take advantage of the parking lot there. The inconvenience would be to the people trying to use it for that purpose. Commissioner Jonathan said it would be to the people trying to use that park who couldn't find a parking spot on Sunday morning. Mr. Drell didn't believe there was any way to �estrict any member of the public using the park. Just like they couldn't �.. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 ; a � ; � � restrict who uses pa�king on the street. Commissioner Jonathan thought it was a design issue and the parking lot could be moved to a different part of the park if it was a concern. It was possible based on some of the letters that the design of the passive portion of the park was oriented toward the south of Thrush Road Bridge. Based on the letters and if the parking lot usage was an issue or a concern, then that whole area could be moved northward. Mr. Drell said it could be, but in this particular case he thought the Aplets and the Crees had divergent interests. One lived on the north side and one lived on the south side. Whenever a park was installed, there were burdens and benefits to people who live next to parks. He said that he lives next to a park very much like this. It is an open space park that is occasionally used by people, but 89% of the time it was vacant and he had free use of it. Every once in a while it was used and he had to share it with the public. To him the trade off was much better since he has an open field behind his house rather than a residential subdivision. He said they try to equitably distribute the burdens. They put the parking lot behind that knob to somewhat disguise it from the Cree's property. The alternative was to put it by the dog run. Then it would be shielded from view by the ridge that comes down. It would bring the � activity a bit closer to the Aplet's property. They have private property ' owners along the entire length of the park and wherever they put the activity, "'� it would affect one or more in a greater or lesser extent. The ideal solution would be for the city to purchase all of the parcels fronting on the park. The issue in terms of an impact was the location of the parking lot. They wanted to keep it as close to the street as they could. Right now the temporary lot was two rows of double loaded spaces and it was closer to a square than a skinny rectangle. They could have one double loaded row going north and south as close to the access road to keep it far away. Commissioner Campbell asked if staff didn't have any problem about the location of the park, why this parking lot was stuck right in the middle. It was an eyesore. Mr. Winklepleck said that when they first came up with the conceptual design, they looked at the location of the existing activity. They designed it around the existing activity. The primary existing activity was where the temporary parking lot is now and where the active areas of the current design are located. Mr. Drell said that area had already been disturbed and if they went out there they would see that people have driven all over it so in doing the temporary parking lot, they didn't want to extend the area of existing disturbance. What they did was smooth out the uneven area of ; disturbance and delineated it with the palm logs. Commissioner Campbell said � 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 r.. that the parking area was disturbed, but it was still all dirt. Now that area just existed and looking at it from the pads up above, they were looking at that and it was unsightly. Mr. Drell said that staff assumed it wouldn't be in that spot. It had been pushed entirely to the south and actually where that parking lot was now was where they showed the basketball court and volleyball court. It had been pushed to the south in an attempt to screen it behind that knob. If they felt it was more appropriate to push it to the north, it could be done. Depending on where they put it, it would affect other property owners more or less, but someone would be affected by it wherever it was located. Commissioner Campbell said that if it was pushed to the north, ihere aren't that many buildings that could be seen by the areas to the north if the city purchased those three lots. Where they had it right now there were more homes in that area that looked down on it. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Commissioner Campbell asked why the parking lot was placed there to begin with. Mr. Drell said that they didn't want to disturb any more area. Any area that they disturbed if they had to change would be revegetated. They picked an area already disturbed and it didn't have significant vegetation on it. They anticipated that the parking lot would end up somewhere else and they didn't � want to grade any natural areas until this process was done. He advised the commission against thinking of the existing location of the parking lot as prejudicing their decision. Commissioner Campbell asked how they proposed to keep people out of the parking lot in the evening or at night. Mr. Winklepleck said there wouldn't be any lights. That should assist partially. He said that he had calls from five or six neighbors that were happy the city was doing something. They typically call when they get off road vehicles running through there. By the time the Sheriff usually shows up, they're gone. With the palm logs, that would hopefully mitigate some of that. Also, if there were teenage kids parking and drinking beer, they were typically not like off road vehicles where they go in, tear it up, and then get out of there. The chances of them getting caught are higher plus with the increased police and sheriff's presence that would help to mitigate quite a bit of that. There would be some issues whether it was with kids parking or with some off road vehicles getting in there. It was just a matter of police presence and a monitoring situation. Mr. Drell said it was no different from Cahuilla Park the way it is now. By definition open space parks were open. If they walled them in, they would no longer be open space parks. They did have some problem at Cahuilla Hills Park � five or six years ago and they increased the sheriff's patrol and those problems had about disappeared. There was a burden on the public agency to monitor these things and the city has a fairly good track record. There was a problem � 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 ; � � .r� at Ironwood Park when it first opened. The people who didn't want the Sheriff's Department to be part of their party found somewhere else to go. Commissioner Finerty asked if in the meetings with the property owners the staff report indicated that they didn't have a desire to have active amenities. She asked if they had a desire to have a park at all. Mr. Winklepleck said it was an interesting meeting and was one of the few that he had been to where they didn't take any action. They didn't necessarily indicate for or against and other than the one letter about saving their children, they had�'t had any input. Commissioner Finerty asked if it would be a good idea to go back to the writers of the letters and property owners at Indian Creek Villas and explain that they could have a certain amount of houses in hillside development versus some sort of open space and a rather insignificant park. It appeared from the staff report that one of the main purposes was to have the multi use trails and have the trail head and maybe that needed to be the focus point rather than them trying to figure out what the people that would be affected wanted. Maybe they needed to know what their desires were. Mr. Winklepleck said that was why they met with them previously. Staff had spoken to them with the exception of the one lady who sent the letter that was distributed in the � commission packets. They had basically seen what the commission was seeing tonight. They had been told that essentially this was what was being proposed and were asked what they wanted. Staff typically met with the neighbors and asked them what they wanted. If there were kids or mo�e active adults, they were asked what kind of facility they would like to see. They took no vote and there were no letters other than the one. Barring negative letters, typically that meant they were in favor of it o� didn't care. Mr. Drell said that staff viewed this park as a regional facility. They also looked at regional parks as a neighborhood facility as it relates to the people who live right next to it. So they looked at parks fulfilling what the regional goal was which in this case was a place for people in the whole city to have an open space area and natural area to walk around in. When they talked to the people around the soccer field, the people at Portola Country Club wanted shuffle board or horseshoes. In this case it didn't seem like the neighborhood had a strong interest in those neighborhood sorts of facilities and he agreed that as a regional facility, the open space nature became paramount in preserving to the greatest extent possible the open space nature. Commissioner Campbell said that the writer of the letter in the packet, Ms. Cree, was not available at that meeting they had and she was mostly affected by this. Mr. Winklepleck said no, the letter he was talking about was from 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 �r.. Ms. Tabachnick. Commissioner Campbell noted there was also a letter from Ms. Cree. Mr. Winklepleck explained that he personally spoke with the other letter writers. Mr. Drell said that staff has talked with Ms. Cree extensively and have for 20 ysars. They weren't in fundamental disagreement. There were alternatives to the location of the parking lot which would have less of an impact on her property. They have no objection to coming back with alternative sites for the parking lot. Commissioner Tschopp asked fo� clarification on what staff was requesting from the commission because the request included a precise plan of design. He asked if they were saying there was a lot of latitude in that and that wasn't actually what was being requested right now. Mr. Drell said ihat based on the discussion, there were a lot of options available. They were really looking for input to finalize a precise plan given the whole range of options suggested by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the various interests of the residents. He thought the goal was for the commission to give staff direction as to what facilities should be part of this approval and secondly, where exactly they should be arranged on the property. Then they could come back with a more definitive exhibit for the commission to recommend to the council. � Commissioner Campbell said that staff was also asking the commission to change the zone from Hillside Planned Residential to Park. She said that was a problem. Mr. Drell said the change of zone and general plan amendment were part of the request regardless of how the facilities were arranged on the property that was what staff was requesting. Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. DORIE CREE, 47-205 South Cliff Road, said that she had some exhibits to show the commission. She said that almost 50 years ago this infrastructure was put in. The Coachella Valley Water District put in a water main to the very top of the mountain. They had fire hydrants and it was a little residential pocket in the hillside. The hillsides to the north didn't have any infrastructure. She said that beauty was in the eye of the beholder and Mr. Winklepleck said that this flat area just purchased for the park was kind of a dump site and a site for homeless people. She said she didn't agree. When people drove along the channel road they did throw beer cans out there and still did and kids would try and park in those coves and stay overnight. In the 20 years � 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 � a � ..r� she has lived there, she has never seen it as a dwelling place for homeless. When she first met with Mr. Winklepleck, she called him when she heard about the park. She was kind of given the impression that this park was going to be an open space and trail head for their new hiking trails into the hillside. Two months later when she saw the plan for the park, she was really surprised to see a basketball court, volleyball court and a parking lot. She didn't think that was going to be part of the plan. Since writing the letter to the commission, she said she came to realize that within the radius of one mile there are actually three parks. The Homme Adams Park which the City is requesting was a long one. She used her exhibit and pointed out the location of the Thrush Bridge crossing, the knoll/ridge, and then another bridge going over the channel and the other park, the Cahuilla Hills Park where there were tennis courts. She said that the two parks were separated by nothing more than a ridge and a big Coachella Valley Water District water tank. This�was the area that Mr. Drell was referring to when he said that the city was buying additional acreage for their hiking trails. The other park was on the othe� side of Highway 74 and it was one � mile away. They have three parks within a one mile radius. She said � that the Cahuilla Hills Park was two-tenths of a mile away. She asked if they needed to have a parking lot, a bathroom and those kinds of facilities at all three parks. She asked if they could keep one of them a nice, big open space that she thought was a beautiful wildlife refuge that could be improved upon with more planting of desert trees and be kept natural. This park where they already had tennis courts with night lights didn't have a bathroom. And there wasn't a parking lot. She took some photos of that park. She said she would much rather see the city consider having three parks that were compatible with one another. Perhaps have the parking facility and bathrooms at Cahuilla Hills Park where there were already tennis courts. She said there was plenty of room there to extend that tiny little parking lot there. The bridge had a much better access there. It was accessed from Painters Path and people wouldn't drive through a housing development. The Ironwood Park had big grassy areas and playgrounds for kids so her request was for the city to consider keeping this park really as more of a nature preserve and open space park. When she looked at the painting behind the commission, it reminded her of the 27 acres with the foothills in the background. The whole idea for the park was to have a trail head and � gateway for hiking into the hillsides. She asked if it would really matter '_ � 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 � to the hiker if his bathroom were located 500 yards at Cahuilla Hills Park. She said it was the same for the parking lot. It was primarily for the hiker. In between there was nothing but a ridge. She had an aerial to show the commission which showed the two parks and the Thrush Bridge. The ridge separating the two parks was where the city was buying additional acreage to get up into the foothills. To the south of the Homme Adams site was the residential housing. It was the only place in the hillside where the infrastructure was in place. She requested that the Planning Commission reconsider the use for this park and look at the big picture and look at all three of these parks so close together and do something that would be more compatible, not duplicate. She felt that they were duplicating the things that they already had. She wanted the commission to take more time and look at the big picture of what this would look like 40 or 50 years from now. Not just make another playground park out of it. Commissioner Finerty said that what she was hearing was that Ms. Cree wouldn't be opposed to the change of zone from Hillside Residential to Open � Space. Ms. Cree said she was opposed. She also had a plan that Mr. Homme had when he was going to do a residential development in there. He was going to do little clusters of housing. She had the same kind of zoning on her lots that he had on his and she knew that the City of Palm Desert would hold him to a very high standard. She knew that it would be an expensive property to develop, it would be good desert landscaping, good architecture, and she was never opposed or afraid of seeing a residential development going in there because she knew it would be something nice. She would like to see it kept as residential. MR. CALVIN CREE, 47-400 South Cliff Road in Palm Desert, said that he was here to speak in opposition to the proposed park as presented. He was very relieved to find out that perhaps the proposed basketball courts, volleyball courts and tot lots would not be incorporated into this conceptual plan as previously presented. He recalled the first meeting when they all met on the othe� side of the Thrush Street Bridge and they were discussing the purpose of this park. As he understood it, the purpose of the park was to be a trail head for access to the public lands � behind Section 30 and really nothing more. When he found out the w. 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 i � �.�/ extent of what eise this park would provide, he became opposed to it. In ihe 25 years he had been in Section 30 and this area, people that cross the Thrush Street Bridge to walk their dogs were going to do just that. He doubted that they were going to go to a designated dog area or park in the designated parking lot to walk their dogs. His experience was that they generally circulate in that area across from the Thrush Street Bridge or they walk up and down the Coachella Valley Water District easement on the west side of the channel. He didn't see how having a designated dog run area would compel people to stay in that area. As indicated by Dorie, he said one of the reasons this area over 20 years ago was designated a hillside specific zoning area was in order to keep this area to the highest development standards obtainable by the city. Now that this area that was designated and zoned residentially was now being proposed as open space, he was concerned what impact that would have on the quality of any potential future hillside development or development on the flat properties that have a grade or a slope. He was very concerned about that. He said that if the purpose of the park was going to serve as a trail head for access to the public � lands behind Section 30, then they should be located at the northerly � end of this proposed 27-acre site. It was established that one of the reasons they wanted the parking lot was that the city wanted it in the proximity of the Thrush Street Bridge to serve possibly for overflow of the churches around the holidays. By experience, he said that when the churches have a large crowd around the holidays, they will inundate Indian Creek Villas. They would park as far as Willow Street and the Highway 74 access road before they would walk over the Thrush Street Bridge in their Sunday finery and high heels to walk through dirt to get to their vehicles. So the location of the parking lot to benefit and serve the churches he didn't see. He also understood that the churches had been contemplating building a parking structure that would serve both facilities eventually. Another reason to keep the parking lot if the parking lot were to be developed for access to the trail head for the public areas, one good reason to keep the parking lot in the most northerly area was the topography of this site. The north area of this site was topographically lower than the Thrush Street Bridge area, so from a security standpoint it would be a very easy area to monitor. It would be suitable for lighting if there were to be a public restroom developed. That brought up another point. North of this area separated only by a ridge was an established park, the Cahuilla Park. That area � � 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 r...r already had a history, a presence, a reputation and people knew how to get there. This was a more suitable area to further develop for picnic areas, for restrooms, lighting, and for more public activity. The Cahuilla Park was more suitable for accessibility because it was an established road with signage and the speed limit is 35 mph down to 25 mph off of Painters Path. He was very concerned about the Highway 74 corridor where they had cars traveling 55 or 60 mph and all of a sudden slowing down and turning onto a residential street where the speed limit is 25 mph. He was wondering if Caltrans would have something to say about that as it pertains to traffic studies and the potential hazard of increased traffic access in and out of the Thrush Road access point. He encouraged the commission to consider in the conceptual plan evolving to also consider restricting and discouraging the access of this area by Thrush Road and encouraging access of this area by the Water District easement connecting to the already established Cahuilla Park to the north of that. In conclusion, he requested that the Planning Commission deny a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact at this time and send this concept back to planning for further �.. consideration and review. MS. JEAN LE DUC, 45-998 Ocotillo, said she wanted to reiterate a couple of comments that had been touched on. She thought that one of the most important qualities of this piece of property is that is an undeveloped, large mass of land in a hillside area where so few opportunities in Palm Desert remain to acquire that kind of acreage. She liked the concept that had been talked about of having some kind of passive park and having this incorporate some hiking trails and multi use paths in the hopes of a more comprehensive trail planning effort up to Art Smith and some of the other trails mentioned. She said she knew that it had been discussed before, but she believed that some of the facilities actually proposed were incompatible with that sort of environment. Having volleyball courts, basketball courts weren't compatible with the sort of natural setting this piece of property represented such an opportunity to. She recommended that the Planning Commission recommend further study of this park, taking some of the direction or the input from the community which was looking at the kind of facilities that were being proposed and rnaybe looking a little more at the character of this piece of property and what was best suited to that piece of property and taking into consideration �..► 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 � what was very accessible in surrounding facilities. She said that with respect to the general plan and zone change ordinances, she knew there had been some suggestion of adopting a phase one concept, but she believed that to undertake a sort of serious entitlement like a general plan amendment and change of zone there needed to be some clarificatian what the immediate as well as ultimate concept of this facility would be. She thought it wouldn't be appropriate to adopt this extensive entitlement on a concept that may change or that may include these types of facilities at a later date which wasn't particularly desired at this time. She encouraged some thought about holding off on making those changes until there was a firmer concept of what this facility would encompass. MR. JOHN VUKSIC, 73-030 Caliandra, said there was good thought expressed about parks in the area. He was a little concerned when he heard about other activities planned in a later phase which may or may not happen because they all knew that if some of that happened, the rest of it would happen in the same area. It would not move to some other area. Looking at this made him think about houses in the hills in � general and he thought about it as a resident. He personally was very "'� familiar with these hills. He saw them from his back yard, his front yard and he saw them when he drove home from work. He said that he drives down Haystack and stared at that hill. He thought about it as an architect and what he thinks about houses on the hills and as someone who loves the city and is very proud of this city. The answer he had for himself was that he was not opposed to houses on the hills provided that they are site sensitive. That meant that they were designed in a way to melt into the site. They were setback from the edge, there was a good use of textures, colors, materials and landscaping to really make them blend into the hills and become part of the hills. In short, they needed to be held to a very high standard. He thought that they as a city needed to be strict about any houses being built following those standards. With the Hillside Ordinance, Planning staff, ARC, Planning Commission and City Council they needed to make sure that happened. He thought that the schematic as proposed would deter any possibility of good a�chitecture happening on that hillside. He looked at it and at the temporary parking lot and from what he could visualize it, there was no way anyone would make the effort to build a good house up there if that was what they were looking at because they would be looking r.r1 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 �r.. right at it. The result would be that it would stay as it is with some shacks and landscape that was really inappropriate with big trees on top of hills or eventually if someone built a house it wouldn't be a house of good quality. It meant that it would be over simplified, inexpensive and would be something that would be noticeable and very inappropriate for a hillside. He said they had to ask what was in the best interest of the city. He thought it was clearly not to do something with this park plan that would deter the potential for good architecture to eventually happen on that hillside. MR. RICHARD FROMME, 48-625 Pisano Road in Palm Desert, said that he lives in the hills and he wasn't going to say anything. His letter listed a couple of his concerns and about the termites. He said that he owns two 5-acre pieces that adjoin the ridge that the City just bought and Mrs. Cree had stated that there was no infrastructure there. He said that both those lots have water, one has power and there was a road to them and he has an easement from Green Way from the Water District to get back to his two lots. There was infrastructure on this side of that ridge and there were quite a few houses back there, so it � wasn't 'ust em t Develo in the lower art would u set other eo le 1 P Y• P� 9 P P P P that live behind that, not particularly him since he lives behind the water tank, but there would be the same problem of everyone looking out for themselves. He said he was for the park. He liked open space, too. He hadn't yet decided if he liked the tennis courts or the volleyball courts, but he thought the open space was important. He thought it should be kept open and he hiked up the trail the other day and it was beautiful. He thought there needed to be some kind of parking somewhere there for people that want to hike. Also, the parking should be as close to pavement as possible because the valley had a PM 10 problem with the dust and the more that they drive away from the pavement, the more problems that were there. MR. HECTOR MARTINEZ, 78-682 Bursera Way, said that he wasn't aware that there was a plan by the City of Palm Desert for a park in this location, but he got a letter in the mail last week and that was why he was at the meeting. This area right now was very nice as it is. It blended nicely with the mountains and he liked it that way. It was quiet, clean and there wasn't much traffic in the area. Building a park would bring residents from all over the valley to their backyards on a � 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 i daily basis. He said he had a bad experience in another city and liked the way the property was now. MR. EDWARD APLET noted that the commission had his letter. Mr. Winklepleck raised one issue on the undergrounding and he suggested that it be addressed. Mr. Aplet explained that he requested a number of years ago that they be allowed power overhead to their property and he wanted to make sure that the city followed their own rules with development to underground them when they put them in. As far as the Thrush Road access, that was another example of how he thought this project wasn't properly addressed. To those that have gone on that access, it was an acute angle coming across the bridge. It was immediately barricaded on what would be the west side of the Coachella Valley Water District easement so they were required to make a sharp left-turn back. The right access down the easement was normally closed by an iron gate that was put in by the Coachella Valley Water District so he thought the design if a parking lot was put near there should be designed to accommodate a direct in access from the � bridge because of making that extremely sharp turn onto and off that � bridge would cause traffic hazards in the future. Mr. Winklepleck said that the first issue he would like to address was the issue of having three parks within one mile. Ironwood Pa�k was across Highway 74 and staff didn't look at it as being part of this particular development. It was across Highway 74, a major highway, and served a different purpose. It was not in the hillside. However, Cahuilla Hills Park was a similar park and as discussed, the proposal would be to have a linked path. There were tennis courts at Cahuilla Hills as identified. Over the years he has heard two people ask for restrooms at that location. It might be different when they get more people hiking. The restroom was a standard facility at a lot of trail heads that he has seen. People would be there and people with kids would be there. He felt that a restroom was still necessary at this park site. If a �estroom was necessary at the Cahuilla Hills Park, even though it was fairly adjacent, he felt that was a separate issue for those tennis players. Staff felt that zoning from Residential to Open Space if anything was less impacting and guaranteed more that the site would stay open space. Remaining residential if it was developed as a park really served no purpose. Residential property could be developed at a much more intense level than Open Space property. The dog run area was to provide something similar to what was here at the Civic Center Park � � 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 � which was some sort of enclosed area. The problem with that was that they couldn't find a good solution to enclosing it without some sort of fence material and hiding it and maintaining it as natural. That was one of the components that they would prefer not to include. There was a comment on the parking lot being easier to monitor at the lower elevation. His concern was the elevation. He didn't know if it had to do with how monitorable it would be. As far as monitoring it, the more people that could see it to monitor it and that would be closer to the bridge where the majority of people drive by. He thought that Mr. Greenwood could address the comment regarding speed and Caltrans. Mr. Greenwood said he didn't think Caltrans would be too concerned about this proposal. Highway 74 had 15,000 cars or more a day. The addition by this project would be imperceptible. It would not make a difference city wise. Mr. Winklepleck said that in the current conceptual plan the recommendation as far as phase one, change of zone, general plan, and precise plan as presented and as it was being recommended by staff, it was a recommendation to city council and if council was to approve that, any �"" amendments to that plan would have to come back to the commission and council for ultimate approval. Mr. Drell said that they would dispense with the description of it as phase one. They would approve a project and it would include what gets approved and stuff that didn't get approved would be deleted from the plan. Mr. Winklepleck noted there was also a comment made in relation to parking relative to PM 10 and dust concerns. If the parking area was to move, they would address that with some sort of binder or some sort of asphalt with chip seal. The undergrounding of electrical overhead was related to where the restroom was and if they were to provide electricity to that facility for lighting, they would be undergrounded and the city would follow our own rules. Staff was looking at some sort of solar power so that electricity wouldn't have to be run to that point. Regarding the access across the bridge and the 90-degree turn that would have to be made, it was a fairly sharp turn that would have to be made and if there were two large vehicles there trying to make the turn at the same time, he could see that as being an issue. He wasn't sure how often that would happen but the traffic engineer could look at it. Mr. Drell said that there was a whole catalog of traffic calming devices which intentionally make quick movements by automobiles difficult in the effort of making sure that cars go slowly. So that movement was well within the physics of automobiles but people were required to go �r.. 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 slowly and they did go slowly. What he wanted to propose was that they take all these comments and come back to the commission in 30 days with other various alternatives in terms of locations, various alternative locations of the parking lot and he thought the consensus if the commission so directed was to delete the active areas, the turf, tot lot, basketball and volleyball so they were really talking about where to put the parking lot and where to put the bathroom and they would show them various spots staff felt was appropriate and the commission and public could evaluate which areas are least impacting on the open space character of the park. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff could also make some determination on just using this area as a trail head. Mr. Drell said the goal was to use it as a trail head. Commissioner Finerty said solely as a trail head with no restroom, no picnic pavilion, no parking lot. Mr. Drell said that if they use it as a trail head, every trail head he has been to has a parking lot and as soon as a real parking lot is put in, people start using it. They would use it instead of disturbing other areas. He felt that a parking lot was needed. He suggested that perhaps 36 spaces were too many for this trail head. He said that there was a problem with not enough parking at Cahuilla Park and they would be � looking at expanding it. There was a pump station that would go into that park and with that pump station they were looking at adding 10 to 12 parking spaces right off of that access road as they drive in. He said there was a place to park. If they didn't give people a specific place to park, they would park any where in an uncontrolled manner. He said they could show the commission various sizes or just start with 12 to 15 spaces and design it in such a way that it would be expandable over time. Chairperson Lopez closed the pub{ic hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty moved to continue this project for 30 days. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. Mr. Drell advised that the public hearing should be kept open. Chairperson Lopez reopened the public hearing. Commissioner Jonathan thanked the residents for being at the meeting to share their thoughts. He hoped that they could see that staff and the commission was very attentive and appreciative of their comments and hoped ; 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 �... they could come up with something that met the entire community's, as well as the immediately surrounding neighborhood's, needs. Commissioner Tschopp said that before the next meeting he would like to get a better quantitative number on the number of irips a park would generate as opposed to a medium/moderate density development in here alternative wise. He knew it would be difficult for them to come up with based on previous comments made about determining park traffic, but he felt it would be helpful in terms of what they were looking at traffic wise. Mr. Greenwood said that he had to caution the commission on not getting their hopes up because the data on parks was very limited and every park was different in every neighborhood. If they put the same park in two neighborhoods, two different things happened. No matter what numbers they brought to them, there would be a huge range. The residential side could be pinned down very closeiy. There would be 600-700 trips per day out of this residential neighborhood. He was comfortable saying that there would be fewer than 100 if this was a park or trail head. That was what he would say in two weeks. �... Chairperson Lopez said that he has used the Thrush Road Bridge but he couldn't remember if there was enough room there for two cars, or one car. He was concerned that if in fact they did proceed with some type of recreational facility here whether it be open space or anything else, he was of the opinion that if they built something, people would come. What he was concerned about was the safety of the individuals who did wish to cross that bridge whether it be dawn or dusk without having sufficient room to walk across there and he was thinking more along the lines of kids. He was looking at the safety factor that there was sufficient room for people to go across that bridge to get to what would be a very nice setting. He asked staff to take a look at that issue. He called for a vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing this matter for 30 days by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. f.. 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 � � � 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. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (March 20, 2001 ) Commissioner Finerty noted that the meeting was informational only. F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (March 19, 2001) Commissioner Finerty said that the city has a plan to underground utilities adjacent to arterial streets and there was an assistance program to underground utilities in certain areas requiring 70% of homeowners Y to sign a petition and then they would form an assessment district. "'� Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was just in Project Area 4. Commissioner Finerty said no, they were th�oughout the city. There were a number in Project Area 1 and that was where most of the money was going right now. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a time line for undergrounding utilities. Commissioner Finerty said that there was a time line in terms of money coming in both from RDA and whoever else would support it in the assessment district. If the commission was interested, they could contact Pat Conlon, who was in charge of it. She clarified that Project Area 1 was kind of the original area, the Palma Village area. Chairperson Lopez asked if there was any conversation regarding undergrounding the utilities on Monterey, and Gerald Ford to the freeway. Commissioner Finerty said it wasn't specifically discussed, but precedence was given to utilities on arterial streets. In Project Area 4 that would be along Country Club and Hovley. She noted that it was a citywide effort and was costly to accomplish. G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) � 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 �r.. H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m. �_. � PHILIP DRELL, Secretary A T: �... JIM EZ, Cha' p on Pal D sert Plann' g ommission /t � 47