Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0403 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - APRIL 3, 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 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chairperson Sonia Campbell Sabby Jonathan Dave Tschopp � Members Absent: Cindy Finerty, Vice Chairperson Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Mark Greenwood, Engineering Manager Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the March 20, 2001 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, to approve the March 20, 2001 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent March 22, 2001 City Council actions. r.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 .�rr VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Jonathan requested that items A and B be considered separately. Commission concurred. A. Case No. PMW 01-10 - RUTHERFORD INVESTMENTS, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between 44-821 Santa Ynez Avenue and 44-841 Santa Ynez Avenue to accommodate an existing swimming pool. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving PMW 01-10 by minute motion. r.�i B. Case No. TPM 27419 - EDC CONSULTANTS, Applicant Request for approval of a 5th one-year time extension for a tentative parcel map subdividing 17 acres into 19 industrial lots. P�oject site is located approximately one-half mile easterly of Monterey Avenue northerly of the future extension of Dinah Shore Drive and southerly of the Southern Pacific Railroad and Interstate 1 0. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was concerned that this map was approved back in 1992 by the County. This was a fifth extension request and he wasn't sure why it was the last request, because there was a potential ten- year life to approvals and perhaps that was why it was the last one. He was at the point where he felt they have had enough time to proceed. His biggest concern was that he wasn't sure this was the right project for this location any longer and he would like to look at it again. He was not comfortable granting another extension. Commissioner Campbell asked if a time extension was granted, if the applicant would come back to the Planning Commission for review of the plans again. .�r 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 �.. Mr. Drell said no and indicated that the plans were supposed to have been included in the commission's packets. Commissioner Campbell said they were. Mr. Drell asked if this sort of industrial subdivision, while consistent with the zoning and General Plan, had something about it that the Commission didn't like or would like to change. In that case, the Commission should deny it and they would come back. The commission would see it again and the applicant could have to reapply. Commissioner Campbell said that if they denied it and they reapplied, then they would restart from year one. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Lopez asked if this was the fifth and last time they could extend this project since there was a ten-year window. Mr. Drell concurred and indicated that since it was approved in 1992, the ten years would expire 2002. Commissioner Jonathan said that his concern was not only how old it is, but that it was originally approved under the County so it hadn't been through a formal approval process through the Palm Desert Planning Commission or at ,,,,� a public hearing before them. They've addressed this before and at one point informally said they would grant 2 one-year extensions and over time that had been extended. Now there was one before them that was a fifth extension that originally went back to 1992 that they didn't even approve. That was part of the reason he was concerned. He would like them to come in and tell them what they have in mind and see if it still makes sense. If it wasn't that big an issue, he was going to vote against approval, but if the rest of the commission felt differently, that was understandable. Commissioner Tschopp said if the idea was to have them come back in and represent it and take a look to see if it is consistent with what was developing in that area now, he had no problem with that. In going through the parcel map and lot sizes, it appeared as though it would fit, but he wouldn't have a problem with them coming back. Commissioner Jonathan said that was his intent. Commissioner Campbell said that even though staff made a recommendation that the map continued to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and General Plan provisions, since they had never reviewed it, she would agree with the other commissioners and she would be in favor of not approving the extension. �... 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, denying a fifth and last one-year time extension for TPM 27419 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. 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, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Continued Case No. CUP 94-2 AMENDMENT #1 - MICHAEL CASTELLI, Applicant (Continued from March 20, 2001) Request for approval of an Amendment to a Conditional Use , Permit to allow the 1 ,308 square foot expansion (880 square � feet-dining, 428 square feet-office) to an existing 3,900 square foot restaurant at 73-098 Highway 1 1 1 (Andreino's1. Mr. Drell explained that this item was continued from the last meeting for two reasons. The applicant wasn't present and the Architectural Review Commission had not approved the rear elevations and requested amendment. The new elevations have been approved. Mr. Drell noted that plans on display showed the view facing the alley and in the future a public parking lot, another faced west, and the east part of it was adjacent to another building. Aesthetically staff felt the addition was appropriate. The applicant has secured a lease for all 40 spaces in the bank parking lot and has agreed to dedicate the residential lot he owns behind his restaurant to the city when they were prepared to develop and implement the core plan which would build public parking behind him. Mr. Drell recommended approval of the expansion. Commissioner Tschopp announced that he would be abstaining. Commissioner Campbell indicated that if the 40 offsite parking spaces were a1f available from the bank, the agreement with the Pet Hospital was no longer necessary. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Commissioner Campbell asked if it was null and void at this time instead of running until December 31 , 2001 . 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 � Mr. Drell said the applicant still had it until the end of the lease, but he no longer needed it. Regarding the letter from Mr. Miller and the delivering of supplies, Commissioner Campbell asked how that would now be accomplished. Mr. Drell explained that there would still be a loading area that would have access back to the kitchen on the west side of the building, which was still open. The large irucks which presently parked in the alley would still park in the alley, but that is where they were unloading from right now. The smaller vehicles that delivered would still be able to have access right up to the kitchen. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the total parking requirement was 40 spaces. Mr. Drell said no, basically the existing use was grandfathered in with whatever square footage it originally had. The 40 represented the additional spaces generated by the expansions over the years, plus the elimination of the spaces in the rear. The total requirement was larger than that. At approximately 4,800 square feet of restaurant in total, it would require 53 spaces. Commissioner Jonathan quoted the staff report as saying that the expansion would require an additional 16 parking spaces, bringing the total up ,,,,,, to 40. Mr. Drell said that was for the three expansions. Commissioner Jonathan said that the total parking requirement if this expansion was allowed as requested, would be 53 spaces. Mr. Drell said that if he built this from scratch today, it would be 53. Commissioner Jonathan noted that with the requested expansion the building would be about 5,200 square feet. Mr. Drell said that 428 square feet would be office use and likely it would not be occupied during the dinner hour. Mr. Drell confirmed that if built today, 53 would be the number of required parking spaces. Commissioner Jonathan asked how many of the 53 were provided on site. Mr. Drell said none. Prior to this expansion they had four. Commissioner Jonathan cfarified that after the expansion there would be none on site and all 53 would be provided by the bank. Mr. Drell said that when people expanded a business they were only required to provide the additional parking for the expansion. They weren't required necessarily to make up the deficiency that existed under the County. They could obviously take that into account in granting an exception to the parking requirement, or allow him to use offsite spaces. Historically they used the street parking on the frontage road. The reason why this restaurant has been able to operate virtually with no onsite parking was because no other use was open on this part of the street. He confirmed that they were getting 40 spaces from the bank. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were all the parking lot type of spaces. Mr. Drell concurred. Whether they could negotiate �.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION , APRIL 3, 2001 � � � more, he didn't know. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the city's time table was for that rear parking area. Mr. Drell said that hopefully as a result of the General Plan update and the completion of Walgreen's, the Redevelopment Agency is in negotiations with the intervening property owner that owns the Radioactive building and also owns a house between the applicant's rear property and the Walgreen's lot. They were in negotiations to try and acquire that house so they could finally implement and begin expanding that parking lot. He was hopeful that as a result of the General Plan update that the whole program would be reinvigorated and put on the fast tract relative to implementation. In any case, given the fact that there is a large empty parking lot available at night and no competing uses in that neighborhood, he didn't see a significant problem being generated by the expansion. While the ideal was to get the parking lot built, in the interim he saw it as an efficient use of resources over time having an empty parking lot utilized to allow a successful restaurant to expand. But there was no time table for the development of the parking lot. ; Chairperson Lopez indicated that the public hearing was o�en and asked the applicant to address the commission. ,,.,� MR. MICHAEL CASTELLI, 44-575 Santa Margarita, said that the street was public parking and they needed 40 spaces for the valet. At least 20 or 30 cars could park there and he thought the Walgreen's parking lot was the overflow parking lot. Mr. Drell said a portion of the Walgreen's parking lot had a public easement on it as part of the deal when they helped them acquire property. One lot of it, about 20 spaces, was what technically had a public easement on it. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Castelli needed an agreement with Walgreen's if he wanted to park some cars there. Mr. Drell said no. He couldn't use it for valet, it would have to be self parking. Mr. Castelli thanked the commission. He hoped the back parking lot would get built so this development could move forward and the alley widened so they didn't have problem going through the alley. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Castelli was going to be required by a � condition of approval to provide evidence yearly of a lease agreement to the � � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 � city for a minimum of 40 parking spaces and asked if he had such an agreement in place. Mr. Castelli said that he has a five-year agreement with the bank. Mr. Drell clarified that the bank agreement was for five years and was a new agreement. Chairperson Lopez asked where the restaurant employees parked. Mr. Castelli said they park in the dirt lot in the back. 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 stated that Mr. Castelli had all the required parking from the bank plus public parking along the street and at Walgreens, and r„�, Architectural Review approved the plans unanimously, so she would move for approval of the project. Commissioner Jonathan said that he had some concerns. He thought that the parking arrangement worked and that it was a good use of resources because the bank demand ended at the time the restaurant demand begins, but conceptually and fundamentally he was uncomfortable. It had been one thing to expand an existing restaurant and add a little here and enclose a patio there, but this was more akin to creating and building a whole new restaurant and it was large at over 5,000 square feet in total. And it didn't have any parking spaces. There was something that went against the grain with that. They have heard from staff that the plans for a permanent parking situation for this project was not even in the works and staff wasn't even able to even give them a time frame, so they were creating a significant building without a parking lot. He could see where it made sense, but he was uncomfortable with it. Maybe the solution was a temporary conditional use permit that wouldn't go for a long period, but then he was uncomfortable with that because they would be telling the applicant to go ahead and invest substantial funds and create this new building and then only giving them a temporary conditional use permit, so he wasn't sure about that. Commissioner Campbell explained that the reason she was comfortable with it was because all of the r.. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 � � other businesses closed at a certain time and everything on the frontage road was empty since no one was open after 5:00- 5:30 p.m. So public parking was available all along the frontage road. Commissioner Jonathan agreed with that and that was why he could see that it made sense. His concern was that if things change, then the city and the applicant were stuck. Commissioner Campbell felt that the General Plan update that they were working on now would implement that in the next year or so and she didn't feel there would be any problem, especially with Walgreen's there. When she visited Walgreen's it was empty, especially in the evening after 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't see the restaurant clientele going over to Walgreen's to use their parking lot. Commissioner Campbell said that if someone wanted to go to the restaurant, people would park where they could. Chairperson Lopez agreed that the tough part of this was that there was a very successful restaurant that has a done great job on developing its clientele over the years. It has a great reputation. But the fact was that there wasn't any parking for the clientele. From his perspective, he wouldn't want to hold this up because of that. He thought the city needed to take action and come up k with a plan on how they would accommodate parking as this area grows or as other thin s come on board or chan e. There was a dirt arkin lot back there � 9 9 P 9 that employees were currently using and that could and should be developed in the future. There was an agreement to go with the leased space at the bank, the vet facility was still there in case there was additional demand or requirements, although there was no lease agreement there. Obviously there was also room out front. From his perspective it seemed that it would be okay for the future and for this conditional use permit. He did want to make sure that the record showed that they as a city needed to move ahead on how they were going to develop parki�g for that area. That parking area should be behind the restaurant and facilities along that alley way there. He said he would second the motion. Commissioner Jonathan noted that conditional use permits could be revoked if there was a problem. Mr. Drell said they could be revoked if the applicant violates a condition. If the applicant lost the parking, the city could shut down this part of the restaurant. Commissioner Campbell said that perhaps in the near future he might be asking for a new location because he was growing so rapidly. Chairperson Lopez called for the vote. � � 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 �.. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstainedl. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2055, approving CUP 94-2 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained). TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO ARRIVE, COMMISSION MOVED ITEM B TO THE END OF THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION. C. Case No. PP 00-24 - NOGLE ONUFER ASSOCIATES for LINDQUIST DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to construct a six-unit apartment complex located on the east side of Ocotillo r.,,, Drive, 110 feet south of Tumbleweed Lane, 45-500 Ocotillo Drive. Mr. Alvarez noted that the request was to build six apartment units at 45-500 Ocotillo Drive. The property is located on the east side of Ocotillo Drive just south of Tumbleweed Lane. The proposal was for six units that consisted of two mirror buildings. Each building would have 2 two-bedroom units and 1 one-bedroom unit. The property would have two access points from Ocotillo Drive leading to parking. There would be a central pool common area usable to all tenants. The property is zoned R-3 multifamily residentia( with a density allowable for six units. In the staff report the development standards were outlined for this project. All the development standards including building height, setbacks, coverage, usable common open space, and parking could be met as illustrated on the site plan. The Architectural Review Commission approved the elevations at its March 13 meeting. The buildings would be single-story with a maximum height of 16'8". Basically the project would comply with the zoning and the General Plan designation, it met all the development standard criteria and staff was recommending approval. For purposes of CEQA the project was a Class 3 Categorical Exemption. r.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 .�i Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be ample landscaping to camouflage the parking. Mr. Alvarez said yes and explained that originally the parking spaces were projected to come out at the property line. The parking spaces were pulled back and ARC required the addition of a three to four-foot decorative wall to screen the parked vehicles and staff felt this was adequate. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant had agreed to the implementation of the five requirements of ARC. Mr. Alvarez said that was correct. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOSEPH HOLOSIC, representing Nogle Onufer Associates at 2398 San Diego Avenue in San Diego, addressed the commission. He stated that he was in agreement with the recommendation of staff for approval of the project, but he wanted to discuss a couple of items. First there was a requirement for a complete soils report. He didn't believe that was necessary if he has a single story structure and assumed minimum ..,� bearing vafues. The second item was one of the Sheriff's requirements for steel doors. He assumed they would allow French doors as long as they were of a steel material on the frame. The third was when they come back in with construction documents, he thought they had improved the elevations especially on the sides and rear and they implemented the parapet additions, but they wanted to change the configuration, delete the double doors out of the bedrooms in lieu of a single door and greatly increase the size of the windows. He thought it functioned better as a unit, so there were some very minor changes. Commissioner Jonathan said he wanted to hear from staff on those three issues. Mr. Drell said that with the issue of the soils report, they could add language that said "as determined by the City Engineer" so that basically his engineer and the City Engineer could get together and it would be whatever they agreed to. The same could go for the Fire Department condition. They have the ability to enforce their own requirements whether the city required them or not, so it would be the same wording "as determined by the Fire Marshal." The other comments had to do with how he was going to address the Architectural Commission conditions which they would deal with at ARC. ..r1 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 � He noted that the Desert Rose units were done by the same architects and in the same general style. Mr. Holosic concurred that it satisfied his concerns. Mr. Alvarez clarified that it was a Riverside County Sheriff's Department condition which was number one on page seven. He said it was more of a safety issue brought up by the Sheriff's Department, not a Fire Marshal requirement. It was a recommendation from the Sheriff's Department. Mr. Drell said that the Sheriff's Department might like to have everyone build fortresses, but he didn't think they were going to force everyone to have steel doors throughout their houses. It would eliminate a lot of glass sliding doors. Mr. Alvarez said that typically main entries to apartment units had steel framed doors. They were the wood one. He said that maybe they could condition it that way, that the main entries be equipped with steel fabricated doors. The applicant raised the issue of French doors. Commissioner Jonathan said this was really restrictive and he didn't recall ever seeing this on any of the other residential developments. Mr. Drell said that while the Fire ,r,, Department is enforcing fire codes, the Sheriff's Department was expressing a desire. He felt they should consider it a suggestion. He didn't have a problem with deleting it or modifying that the frame of the doors be steel and have dead bolts, etc. But he didn't think they should require it. Commissioner Jonathan suggested including that, subject to aesthetic and structural considerations. Mr. Drell said that they could leave it up to him and add the words "or as determined by the Director of Community Development." Commissioner Jonathan said that was fine. Commissioner Campbell noted that on Mr. Conley's memorandum, he discussed the location of the parking area which made the vehicles vulnerable to burglary during the night time hours due to location which might be decreased with an increase in lighting. Mr. Alvarez said that at this time staff didn't have any lighting plans, but any lighting plans submitted must be in conformance with the city's lighting ordinance. It was up to the commission, but some safety lighting could be added. Mr. Drell said that in this community too much residential lighting was not encouraged. He didn't think we had the severe crime problem which would justify its absolute requirement. Given the current energy problems, to be effective they would have to be on all night. Obviously there were all sorts of strategies to make things safer but they had � 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 to be balanced with other considerations. Commissioner Campbell felt that they would have enough landscaping lighting to provide adequate lighting. 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 and/or action. Commissioner Jonathan felt it was a great project that met the needs of the neighborhood. It was a good use of the location and was tastefully designed and flowed well, there was adequate parking and contained all the attributes he thought they would be looking for on this site. Subject to the modifications as discussed, Commissioner Jonathan moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell was in agreement with Commissioner Jonathan. She said she visited the area and this project would fit right in without any problems, even visitor parking. She seconded the motion. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. He thought it was a well-thought out � project and it would complement the neighborhood. Chairperson Lopez called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2056, approving PP 00-24, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. D. Case No. PP 00-25 - NOGLE ONUFER ASSOCIATES for LINDQUIST DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to construct a six-unit apartment complex located on the east side of Ocotillo Drive, 390 feet north of Verba Santa Drive, 46-050 Ocotillo Drive. ' :� i � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 ... Mr. Alvarez said the project was identical, had the same lot size and the same number of units, same characteristics and met all the requirements. Staff recommended approval, subject to the modification of the same conditions as in Case No. PP 00-24. Chairperson Lopez o_..pened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOSEPH HOLOSIC, representing Nogle Onufer Associates at 2398 San Diego Avenue in San Diego, said he was available for any questions. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. TOM SPRINGER, 46-075 Verba Santa, stated that he was concerned about a barrier wall behind the property and the elevation of the building with the windows looking into his backyard. He said his ,,., property was directly behind the project, which he wasn't opposed to, he just had some concerns about it, what kind of wall would be put up between the two properties and the elevation of the property with any windows facing toward his property. Mr. Holosic addressed the commission. He said that they were putting in plastered block walls around the perimeters of the three inside and rear perimeter walls of the property to basically allow their grading to work. These walls would be on their property adjacent to existing fences which bordered all three sides of the property. So they were basically not going to affect in any way their fencing or the views. He thought that the heights of the windows were such that there would be no views directly through the fencing. The fencing was taller than the window heads so he didn't think that a material issue existed. He agreed that they had windows that were ten feet from the property line and that was sort of part and parcel to the apartment concept. They were putting trees in the rear property to make the places better for the occupants of the apartments and they could put them so that they were opposite the windows. ... 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � ; APRIL 3, 2001 Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a grade differential between this property and Mr. Springer's property. Mr. Alvarez said there didn't appear to be. It sloped from south to north, but he didn't believe there was a grade difference between the two. Mr. Holosic said they were cutting down and there was a slight slope across both pieces of property. He thought there might be a three-foot differential so in order to maintain an accessible unit they needed to come down on one side and basically build up a little on the other side. But the fences that were there were around six feet tall, so he thought they would be at or below the fence sight line level. Mr. Springer said that two properties at the back of this property had power poles at each end and he wondered if they would be undergrounded. After the project developed, there would be virtually no access for Edison to trim the trees, which they did constantly off the vacant lot now. With the poles set at each end of the property, he wondered if they could underground the poles so that they wouldn't have that issue later with trucks trying to get into the back of any of these properties to trim the trees. He said he also had a big tree that needed trimmed. Now would be the time to underground them if it was going to get done. Mr. Drell said typically the lines continued above ground on either side. When they took the poles down, there they would end up with a cris cross of cables behind their homes anyway unless they were removing poles. The trees could be trimmed, it would just be more difficult. That situation was common throughout Palm Desert and there was an easement and that ten feet is accessible to Edison and they would have to prune those trees like they do every where else in the city in that similar situation where there are power lines between lots and trees between them. They would have to make sure that any trees planted by the applicant were not ones that would be a problem and they would have to be slow growing short trees that wouldn't get up into the power lines and then they would have to find a way to trim them. But it wasn't an unusual situation. Mr. Drell said the city was creating a program so that residential areas could underground poles if the neighborhood agreed to assess themselves. So if all the people who benefit from electricity feel that � they would like to put those poles underground and agree to form an assessment district to do it, the city would assist in paying a substantial 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 � portion of the cost. That was how those would be undergrounded eventually, if they ever were. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell moved for approval. Commissioner Jonathan seconded the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2057, approving PP 00-25, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. ,r,,,,, E. Case No. CUP 00-07 Amendment #1 - FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the existing use permit, specifically an amendment to the County of Riverside approved Public Use Permit #519 to delete condition #30 which provides that the permit "shall terminate at noon on July 1 , 2010..." Said church is located at 43-400 Warner Trail. Mr. Smith indicated that the request was an amendment to a condition of approval on the original public use permit approved by the County of Riverside under Public Use Permit No. 519. The church was originally approved by the County in 1984. That approval was revised in July of 1990. Both of those actions took place prior to the City's annexation of the area. He noted that the city considered an expansion request by the church in September of 2000. The request was not approved. At that point there was extensive discussion on the activities at the church and the services they provide to the community. He stated that the current proposal has nothing to do with that expansion. What was being requested was that the commission remove Condition No. 30 that the County imposed in 1990 which would terminate the use as of July 1 , 2010. The church and the improvements exist. Generally the city recognizes �.. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 � � � � conditions imposed on properties that we annex in after the fact with the proviso that those were conditions that would fall within the normal scope of city policies. This was not a condition that the city would contemplate on any use. If the use was so precarious as to limit its life to 20 years, then we would be inclined to just recommend not approving it and not putting the property owner in the position of allowing them to go there for 20 years and then terminating the use. For that reason staff was recommending that the request be granted to amend the permit and delete the condition. If the neighborhood has concerns with the operation, maintenance or other matters associated with the church activities, we should hear them and if reasonable impose conditions on the operation of the church. Staff felt the deletion request should be affirmed. The request was a Class 1 Categorical Exemption for CEQA purposes. Mr. Smith asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked if staff had any idea why the County placed this condition on the project. Mr. Smith said that apparently they did it all the time. Commissioner Campbell said that even the state gave a 99-year lease and allowing the church for only 20 years was sad. '� � Commissioner Tschopp said he was glad that the city would never do something like this and he agreed. Mr. Smith said not where there are physical improvements involved, no. Staff might suggest limits with entertainment permits and for similar uses of that nature a temporary permit, but not where someone invests a lot of money in physical improvements. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. WARREN STALLARD, representing the applicant, 43-400 Warner Trail. He stated that he concurred with the recommendation of staff and was available for any questions. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Stallard remembered why the church agreed to this condition. Mr. Stallard said he wasn't a member of the church at that time, however, he did attend the hearing with his previous employment and he didn't really recall the reason for it. He agreed that it was a strange # condition. � � 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 �.. 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. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2058, approving CUP 00-07 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. F. Case Nos. C/Z 00-02 and PP 01-02 - ROBERT ORR, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a change of zone from PR-5 to O.P., and a precise plan for three buildings on a 2.33 acre site located at 74-150 Country ,`, Club Drive. Proposed zone change also includes the 2.33 acre lot immediately to the west. Mr. Smith said that the request was two fold in nature. The applicant was requesting approval of a general plan amendment and change of zone from Planned Residential five units per acre to Office Professional. Secondly they were requesting approval of a precise plan of design for three buildings with the southerly and northerly most buildings being two stories while the center medical office building would be single story. Commission received the full set of plans in their packets. The site is located on the north side of Country Club east of Portola. It is relatively flat. It borders the Desert Willow Golf Course to the north and Country Club Drive to the south. The matter was before the commission without approval from the Architectural Review Commission. February 27, 2001 , ARC denied the request, citing that the architectural style was unacceptable for the residential/resort nature of this area of Country Club and that the constraints placed on the site plan by the long, narrow shape of the property were inconsistent with the office park/resort environment. The applicant had filed an appeal to that action and the appeal would be considered by the City Council once the Planning Commission had taken an action on the precise plan and the change of zone requests. He noted that in 1999 Zoning Ordinance Review Committee and staff presented a proposed ordinance r.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 ' change to create a new office park district which was called POP (planned office park district►. It was going to affect large office park developments, minimum site areas of two acres. The area in question had been preliminary appropriate for that zone district. Ultimately POP was not endorsed by Planning Commission and it died. What it would have given us would have been standards that probably would have been more effective for this type of development in that it would have required greater landscape areas and given the applicant an opportunity to work within the height limits he wished to do. Without having POP available, ihe applicant filed for the existing office district which was written for infill and transition situations along Fred Waring and Monterey and lots as little as 15,000 square feet. On the bottom of page two staff discussed at length the purpose of POP. They hoped to achieve some flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design, and development of parcels of land as coordinated projects. It was further intended to provide the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments in a park-like setting. If they were achieving the purpose of the POP district with this project, staff would have recommended approval of the change of � zone, but staff didn`t feel the proposal achieved the goals as outlined. Hence, � staff was not prepared to recommend approval of the change of zone. Relative to the precise plan, the property is immediately west of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. As designed it would share access with the church. The church has a driveway on its westerly boundary that was also located on the easterly boundary of the proposed project's site. The project was designed to connect to the church property and to connect with the vacant 2.33 acre site to the west. They had a plan from the applicant which was on display showing a concept of how those projects could be laid out. The precise plan showed a two-story bank facility at the south end of the property setback 92 feet from Country Club. There would be a one story medical office. And at the north end overlooking Desert Willow was a two-story office. The front setback was comprised of 30 feet of landscaping, a row of parking, landscape and hardscape adjacent to the building. Building architecture was a contemporary blend of the One EI Paseo building at EI Paseo and Highway 1 1 1 and the Sunlife Medical Building at 73-211 Fred Waring Drive. The landscaping for the project would be desert and would complement the Desert Willow landscaping. Issues with the precise plan involve the building height, the two-story buildings were shown at 32 feet and the OP standards limit building height to 25 feet. The project showed 105 parking spaces onsite. Strict adherence with the parking standards would require 163 spaces. The � applicant in their calculations assumed some reduction and in addition � 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 ` indicated a need to obtain approval of a shared parking arrangement with the church property to the east. At this point they didn't' have anything from the church indicating anything in the form of an agreement indicating acceptance or a willingness to participate in a shared parking arrangement. Staff also noted in the project data chart that the site plan provides for 18.4% landscaping. The OP standards don't have a requirement for landscaping other than in 15% of the parking areas. POP would have required 30-35% landscaping for buildings in excess of 30 feet in height. Mr. Smith said that the proposed site plan was not what staff had in mind when contemplating offices in this area, The plan which staff would be prepared to recommend would provide a campus, resort or park-like setting as opposed to the more urbanized linear look which was better suited for Fred Waring or Highway 1 1 1 . He noted that the city received a letter from Silver Sands Homeowners Association indicating that in their opinion the project is well conceived and that the Board has no objections. They believed that if the project proceeded there should be a traffic light installed at their entrance. Basically at this time the project had several unresolved issues. A) there was no formal parking arrangement to consider from the church. B) the height of the buildings. The �,,� buildings were currently 32 feet and for code purposes they were a little higher than that in that height was measured from the curb in the OP district. The OP district did not provide for exceptions to height, so they were at the point where the applicant would need to drastically amend the elevations by eight or ten feet or they needed to Iook at a new zone category to place this in. Staff felt the site plan was not indicative of a park-like setting. It was buildings surrounded by parking lots. ARC determined that the architectural style was inappropriate for the residential/resort nature of this area of Country Club. In conclusion, staff recommended that the matter be continued with direction from commission. The first inclination was that the applications not be approved and that staff present the commission with a resolution of denial at the next meeting. However, if commission felt there was enough merit to warrant continuance with the applicant given direction on what was needed to be done to bring the matter into an acceptable level, then the matte� should be continued to a date certain and let them make the changes. Another alternative would be to hold this request in abeyance and refer the issue of a new office zone category back to ZORC to consider a different version of the POP ordinance again. He noted that staff did not complete an environmental assessment. If it looked like the project was going to be approved, staff would do so before returning with it. He asked for any questions. �.. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � APRIL 3, 2001 Commissioner Tschopp asked why ZORC didn't approve POP. Mr. Smith indicated that ZORC did, Planning Commission did not. He thought that the concern at that time was the potential height of the buildings that were contemplated in it. It had provisions in it for up to 45 feet of building height. Chairperson Lopez concurred that was the major issue. Commissioner Jonathan thought the commission wanted ZORC to look at it again and maybe tweak it and that conceptually they didn't have a problem with POP, but it never came back and he lost track of it. Mr. Smith said he didn't recall the Planning Commission's action being that direction. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Smith knew the height of the church. Mr. Smith said it was 24 or 25 feet high and it was at curb level or maybe a couple of feet below curb level because they have a large retention basin out front. Mr. Drell said that was at the peak of the ridge. Visually they would see the eave which is probably at 10 or 12 feet. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the application before the commission was ; for the right half, the eastern 2.33 acres of the drawing before the � commission. Mr. Smith said yes, that was for the precise plan request. The zone change would affect the entire 4.66 acres. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the precise plan portion was only for the three buildings on the eastern parcel. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that the drawing for the western parcel was only the applicant's conceptual rendering of what might go there. Mr. Smith said that was correct and didn't believe it had been endorsed by that property owner. Commissioner Jonathan said that the western 2.33 acres was not owned by the applicant. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mr. Drell confirmed that the plan was pure speculation. It was how that piece could be planned. Commissioner Campbell noted that they couldn't tell if they would be one or two story buildings. Mr. Smith said the calculations used were for single story. Commissioner Tschopp requested clarification that PR-5 would allow up to five units per acre. Mr. Smith said yes, residential single family at about 3.8 to the acre; apartments/condos at five units per acre; and hotels at 18 units per acre. Mr. Smith confirmed it would allow between 3.8 and five units per acre for residential. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it was developed as zoned right now if it would require signalization. Mr. Greenwood said no, not necessarily. � He said there was no signal proposed for that location at this time, in the near future or in the far reaching future. Commissioner Tschopp said that the basis 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 ..�. the homeowners across the street were basing their approval on was installation of a signal which was probably not going to happen. Mr. Greenwood said that was correct. It was not being recommended by the Public Works Department at this time. He explained that traffic signals were not the solution to every traffic problem and in fact sometimes caused more problems than they solved. There were other ways to address the situation there such as prohibiting turning movements which would be far more effective without affecting the flow on Country Club. They would be looking to explore that option much more quickly than a signal. Chairperson Lopez o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT ORR, 77-734 Country Club Drive, he said he represented the existing owner of the property. As background, he expiained that several months ago his organization was retained to find a site for Canyon Bank in the Country Club corridor between Portola and Cook Street. This was one of the sites that came up. In consultation with r,..,, the existing owner and the city, it appeared that professional office type services would fit in with future plans and zoning on this site. From day one they had consulted and reviewed their ideas with the church and Silver Sands across the way, the two biggest neighbors. The church had several concerns about parking and congestion and Silver Sands at their last meeting were all for it. He felt that it would provide a minimum of congestion on weekends and traffic was far less than anything that was retail commercial. He was not in a position to tell the commission if it was developed as residential how much congestion it would create, but the good news was that it wouldn't create any additional congestion on weekends in conflict with the church. He said the bank representative and the architect were both present tonight. The design team did everything they could to try and mitigate all of the concerns. MR. STEVE HOFFMAN, President and CEO of Canyon National Bank, 75-313 14th Green Drive in Indian Wells, stated that as indicated, they had opened a branch in Palm Desert on October 30 in that particular shopping center just east of the land they were talking about at the Ralph's Center. They opened October 30 and they were welt in excess of S6.5 million in deposits already. They saw this as more than a �.. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 � � branch and the reason they were requesting two stories was so that they could have some back office personnel, a marketing department or loan process area. They needed some extra back office facilities and this particular area because it was so centrally located would really help them. They had been able to do well in that area and see it going extremely well. He didn't know what the city would allow between the church and the center on the left on Portola anyway. He didn't think it would be residential. He said they tried to set it back as much as they could to make it as campus like as he thought they were going to be able to get there. He said they enjoyed being here and hoped to do a lot of good things in the city of Palm Desert. MR. TOM SUITT, Chairman of the Board of Canyon National Bank, 38315 Maricaibo Circle in Palm Springs, stated that about a year and a half ago they started this process. He did believe that this facility, which was more than a branch, they have a very small branch which they have almost outgrown it already in six months. He said the facility would sit back more than 100 feet from curbfine, so from an aesthetic and economic standpoint it made sense to fit that property and satisfy ,,,�� both the needs of the bank and the community. They had good support from the neighbors which he believed was very important and he would appreciate the commission's support for this project. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place in Palm Desert, Suite A, distributed a site line study to the commission. He also had a packet of pictures for the commission. (A copy is on file in the Department of Community Development.) He noted that there were several issues brought up by the Planning staff. He pointed out the location of Mr. Homme's project. Mr. Bozick's property and his representative was present (Matthew Johnson►, the Orr project, and the Seventh Day Adventist Church. He informed commission that the photographs were to demonsirate to the commission what Count�y Club was all about. He said it was a unique street from the standpoint that it has a lot of country clubs on it. At almost all the corners major shopping centers developed except for the Portola and Country Club corner. He pointed out the development of a major shopping center at Monterey and Country Club with various types of buildings being placed ; almost on the property line very close to the street. He tried to show � that this was typical of what has been approved by the city in the past � 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 �... for projects that are more intense than office professional. Office professional did not get the type of traffic that a shopping center did. With his pictures he demonstrated what had been built along Country Club as a comparison to his proposal, including apartments, other shopping centers, two-story office buildings, as well as country clubs. Because so many of the existing buildings were so close to the street that was why they did the sight line analysis to show that the top of the buildings, even though the bottom of the roof line was just above 13 feet, the roof slopes up and because it is so c(ose up, a two story building like the proposed one at 104 feet from the curb would not be seen if there was a small building in front of it. That meant the two story bank building would hardly be seen unless someone was right in front of the building. From the other direction the church building would block most of it. He said the purpose of showing Homme's development was to show the commission an architecture that had very little planning in it from the standpoint of trees and he also showed other uses allowed on Country Club that were just down the street from their project, including Manor Care and the church. The main plantings ,`,,, in front of the Homme project were palm trees, mesquite type trees and Washingtonia Robusta palm trees. The point was the architecture was similar and every building was the same architecture as it marched down. Two of the buildings were almost touching one another, the roof lines were almost touching. He noted that there was no landscaping in between there, it was just an alleyway. He said the distance was 1 1 YZ feet between the buildings and he didn't call that a campus like atmosphere. He didn't know where that word came from and why the staff thought it up because to him what Homme had produced was not a campus like atmosphere. It was just a bunch of bui(dings pushed up against the street spaced very close together. From the design the parking lot was basically all in the back and the building was in the front. Mr. Ricciardi noted that the city had been doing that lately with commercial buildings. It all started with the development of the center where Banana's is located. They had some restaurants back there between Painters Path and Fred Waring facing the mountains. He felt the center had been very unsuccessful. The staff at that time said that was the way to go with the backs of the shopping center facing the street to look nicer. Mr. Ricciardi disagreed and indicated that since then they have remodeled that center and it was still basically backs of buildings facing the street. He said that was what was going on at �... 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 .rr Washington and Country Club with backs of buildings facing the street and they were tall buildings and he didn't feel that made good architecture. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he was attacking the philosophy. He noted that the pictures showed how close these buildings were to the street with very little landscaping of any size or magnitude and they all lined up like soldiers. The back parking lot did the same thing. It was tremendously devoid of trees and he pointed out where there weren't any trees. He felt the pictures showed the austerity of the parking lot, the median in the center, and ihe buildings just facing each other. Mr. Ricciardi stated that the church was huge and showed how far back it went. It had a high spiral and high ridge on it. He compared that to the height of the proposed building. He also pointed out the landscaping at Manor Care. Mr. Ricciardi indicated that their design was to take what Mr. Homme had done and build on that. He showed how the parking spaces were laid out on the Homme project. When they did their project they tried to get as much green in as possible and set their buildings farther back. The next thing they did was get car parking that was meaningful. The parking was convenient for each building. At the bank there would be 30 feet of landscaping and � another 12 feet for the meandering sidewalk. They wanted to berm it up and hide the cars. He felt that was much nicer than if they continued the theme set by the Homme project. He said that originally they talked with the church and had been dealing with the church. They thought the church would be in favor, but they weren't. That meant they probably wouldn't have a medical building, just a standard office building with no medical allowed. They would go to a one story building and that would take the car parking reguirement gross dawn to 1 12. He said that would be reduced because of hallways and bathroom areas, elevators and lobbies. If the gross requirement was 1 12 and they have 105, there were only seven cars deficient. Because they have a lot of hallways in the three buildings, he felt that would be reduced to get them down to that. He suggested that the project be conditioned with no medical and no two-story in the back. In talking with the Bosick people, they wanted the building to be two stories. He explained that they didn't have the parking for it. Mr. Bosick suggested parking under the building. Mr. Ricciardi felt that the city had to condition whatever they did, the Orr property with the Bosick property, on something similar to this. The fact was that these were long, narrow parcels and to get cars back there they had to have driveways. .ri 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 �... If the church wouldn't let them on their property for parking, there wouid stili be access with the driveway because of the joint easement for the driveway. It was the same with the Homme project. They were conditioned with a joint use driveway. So he always knew he would have to give half of his driveway away to whatever developed there. That would allow fire truck access. With all this shared parking they wouldn't be able to police cars from each one. The church could put up a gate. If they were allowed to proceed, they would still like to work out an area with the church where they would clean up ihe landscape and make it nicer and probably let them use the proposed project's area on Saturday. He said that at the Architectural Review Commission meeting the two architects liked the project and so did Ron Gregory. They didn't see how the site plan could be any better. They said that. But they went along with the motion because they knew it had to come before the Planning Commission and it was the Planning Commission who had to make the final decision and it was Mr. Drell who brought up the aspect that this was not a campus like situation. Mr. Ricciardi thought it was a campus like situation and it made the car parking work ,r„! a lot better and flow a lot better because they wouldn't want to put a bunch of buildings up in the front and all the parking in the back. People in the United States didn't want to walk a long distance. Parking spaces needed to be reasonably placed for people to get to the office. He felt they had a fine plan with the access, circulation and emergency access. They also have a large area of landscaping and felt they had more landscaping than Mr. Homme's project. At ARC the two architects said that 25 feet was not a workable height for two story buildings. Therefore what happened was they lowered the building down to 25 feet but then they stuck a parapet wall on top of the building which exceeded 25 feet to hide the air conditioning, which was allowed. He said they needed common sense to prevail here and he hoped this was a place to find it. He frankly didn't know what Mr. Drell meant when he said campus like atmosphere. Mr. Homme didn't have a campus like atmosphere. Yes, he had individual buildings but they were so close together that they wouldn't find that on too many university campuses. He hoped that the Planning Commission would see that the proposed project is a good design. ... 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 � � � � Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Ricciardi said that they didn't want a medical building in the middle or a two-story building in the back, but they still wanted a two-story bank. Mr. Ricciardi said that the bank needed two stories to put their trust departments and accounting in. The bank loved this site and needed a two-story building. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Ricciardi would objeci to the second story being setback. Mr. Ricciardi said that if it would work with their design he would have no objection. He also had no objection to lowering the building to 25 feet if they could get it to work. They had no objection to that. He said that the reason they chose this style of architecture was because it was desert style architecture. As a desert architect that was what he felt should be done here. Mr. Homme's buildings were not desert style architecture. Metal roofs belonged other places. That was seen up in � snow country and other places. He said that style was seen in Walnut ,,,� Creek and that was the style that was being introduced here. He didn't feel that was good desert architecture. He also noted that Mr. Bosick's representative was here. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. MATT JOHNSON, 73-134 Bel Air in Palm Desert, stated that he was representing Mike Bosick, the owner of the adjacent property. He said that they reviewed the site plan and had three concerns until coming into the meeting tonight, but now it was down to two concerns. Originally they had four concerns and the first concern was the two- story bank building, but after Iooking at the drawings and how the bank building would be set back, it was alleviated. Their first impression of a two-story building was the most recent one, One EI Paseo where there was a two-story building eight or ten feet away from the street and that was a big concern. Actually the way Mr. Ricciardi had drawn this with the building back that far, it was less obtrusive than a one story building so that concern had gone away. They liked the site plan ' and the way the parking was around the buildings rather than all the ' � 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 r.. building in the front and the parking in the back. That seemed to make sense and they liked the flow. The two things they were concerned with was the area between the Bosick property and the Homme property. That area was only 20 feet wide and he thought it should be a 24-foot drive. That seemed small and he didn't know from Public Works if that was a minimum or if that should be required. It also seemed there should be some additional way to get out to Portola. With that, the project, the two-stories, the change of zone had thei� support. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Bosick had plans to develop that site and if so, if they were anything close to what the commission was seeing. Mr. Johnson confirmed that Mr. Bosick has plans to develop that site but he wasn't ready to go to a speculative nature and build a building and hope someone showed up. Mr. Bosick wanted him to find a tenant for him since he is a real estate broker and then bring him a proposal. �, Commissioner Jonathan asked if any design work had been done at this point. Mr. Johnson said no specific design work on this parcel. They reviewed what Mr. Ricciardi had done and they liked the way it circulated. PASTOR STEVE BLUE, 74-200 Country Club Drive, stated that he was representing Seventh Day Adventist Church which is adjacent to the proposed project. He said they wanted to be good neighbors and be supportive where they could, but their Board of Directors at a duly called meeting voted unanimously to oppose the proposed plan for the change of zoning. Their concerns center around the proposal of a two- story bank with drive-through window, 24-hour ATM and Saturday banking hours right across from the entrance to their sanctuary. They meet on Saturday morning and this drastic change in the use of the property which is now zoned for residential would present not only a drastic increase in the amount of customer traffic which shares the common driveway and the entrance to their church, but presented noise, safety, security, and parking issues that would greatly impact on the community. The driveway shared the entrance, but this type of commercial or banking environment was not what was planned in the city when it was approved. There would be a lot of traffic in and out. •.. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 Banking customers seemed to be short term and that concerned them in terms of noise and security. The 24-hour ATM gave them security concerns for their property in the evening and making sure they could monitor who comes in and out. They also have a child development center on their facility and the parents polled have concerns about traffic and security issues involved with having a bank with shared drive involved with their children at the center. The second major item of concern was parking in their area. There were many days on Country Club Drive the need for more parking was evident. Desert Springs Marriott from time to time parked their cars along the street as did the Manor Care nursing facility. As he goes to visit patients there, it was hard to find a parking place. While they would be open to shared parking, the issue of having less spaces and counting on theirs for parking presented a problem in his mind as they continue to grow and the city grew. He didn't think it made good sense to build with a minimum amount of parking. They really needed to think long term on that issue. Their concern about the lack of parking also caused them to stand in opposition. He said they weren't as opposed to the zoning change if it were the right group and if the parking and these concerns could be alleviated, they could support it at some point in the future. But their main opposition right now was the noise, traffic, and the coming in and out with the bank and that seemed to be the consensus of their group for which he spoke. Chairperson Lopez asked if Mr. Orr would like to address any of the concerns expressed. Mr. Orr said no. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. He noted that there was a recommendation in the staff report for a continuance, as well as other suggestions. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor of the change of zone to office professional. She was in favor of not having a medical use in the one building and it being reduced to single story. From the bank building, it seemed from the line of sight that it would be visible with berming, but it would be interesting to see if the second story could be setback to see if it would have adequate area for the bank to conduct their business. As far as the church is concerned, she is in retail on EI Paseo and she has the Bank of America a few doors down and on Saturdays business was really dead. People didn't go in and out of the bank parking lot even though the bank was open 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 � until 2:00 p.m. She also didn't think that the ATM would be very busy in the evening. She suggested that staff look at an easement through the Homme property to see if they could exit to Portola from the Bosick area as recommended by Mr. Johnson. She said it looked like a great project. Commissioner Jonathan didn't see it that way. He felt that staff had done a fine job as this project has progressed and that ARC had done a fine job. Both ARC and staff really tried hard to work with the applicant to show them what they had in mind for this and what they had before them was the exact opposite of what they had in mind and what he thought was appropriate for this particular location. They heard that Canyon Bank would like to come in with a larger presence and be a good neighborhood and would like to do what they could to be a good neighbor. He suggested that to be a good neighbor the bank could present a project that didn't need a height exception that if the zoning was 25 feet, it was 25 instead of 32. Come to them with a project that didn't have a parking shortage. If it requires 163, build 163, not 105. Come to them with a project that has adequate landscaping. If it was supposed to be 30-35%, don't put in 15%, put in 30-35%. Come to them ,,,� with an architectural style where they weren't hearing over and over again from staff and ARC that it was inappropriate. Come to them with a site plan that was acceptable and that they haven't heard all along was not acceptable. He thought it had been made clear what was appropriate for that site. He thought the description "campus like" was very clear. It meant generally one story, bungalows, multiple units, not three buildings stacked in a row jammed into a narrow space. That was not what was appropriate for that site. It was spurious to put up a drawing of seven buildings on a five-acre site when they were coming to commission with a 2.33 acre site that had three buildings that were jammed in, two of them being two-story with architectural features that had been conveniently removed because they were frankly just very undesirable. He noted that Mr. Ricciardi had been hearing that over and over and he was saying it again. That wasn't the kind of architectural design he thought was appropriate. Having said all of that, he thought the site was workable. It wasn't a hopeless situation. He thought if the applicants were to work sincerely and with an open mind with staff and ARC they could come up with a wonderful design. He thanked Mr. Ricciardi for showing them all the mistakes that have been made on Country Club so they didn't repeat them. He had to say that if they were going to talk about the Homme project in terms of what it implies for this application, he liked the Homme project and the architecture far better than what he was seeing tonight. If the Homme r.. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 � � project wasn't perfect, so be it, but it was certainly an indication of what staff and ARC has in mind and what he himself would have in mind when they talk about a campus like presentation. If they didn't like that word, they could forget that word. What he was referring to specifically was smaller buildings, single story, more spread out, more landscaping, more parking and generally a less intensive use of the site. He thought that staff hit it dead on when they said their first inclination was to deny the project. That was what ARC had done and that was what he would be in favor of doing tonight. Commissioner Tschopp said a problem he identified was that there was no basis to approve 32-foot high buildings. At this time he wasn't willing to say that he didn't disagree with Mr. Ricciardi's comments that setting it back from the street would alleviate some of the height problem, but having said that, he thought the lot was a real constraint as designed and without the agreement of the adjacent property owner they basically had three buildings lined up on a very narrow lot. He thought it would be a benefit to the city in the future to come to some type of agreement on how they would develop that or what � they envisioned for the future because these sites as they developed would � , create a tremendous traffic problem on Country Club where signalization may �.ii not be a possibility and may be completely improbable. If that was the case there would be a problem. He thought early on in the development planning stage that the applicant should talk to Mr. Homme to see if there is a way to gain access to Portola. These might be constraints that couldn't be done, but he wanted him to come back with ideas of how they have approached the other owners, how they've looked at how they could develop in the future and to go forward. He thought the parking was still an issue and the proximity of Desert Willow and the investment in that demanded a little bit higher amount of architecture that what was given, although he wouldn't say he favored Homme's design over the proposed project. He stated that he read the ARC comments and he'd have to say that there are some real concerns there. Given that, he would like to see everyone get together and come up with a better plan and approach it from a different manner. Commissioner Campbell said she would agree that they needed to go back to Architectural Review because they hadn't given approval. Chairperson Lopez said he shared the concerns expressed by the other � commissioners. He had concerns with the parking and the building height. He said he had a difficult time looking at a drawing that showed seven buildings � +.i 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 �.. when they were only considering a project with three buildings. He wasn't sure why that concept was even done since there was no agreement between the adjacent property owner, there were no plans, but he admitted it looked better. That was a concern he had for what would be there in those three buildings. The two story height bothered him quite a bit. He had concerns with the church, the shared parking and the lack of parking. He would rather see this project denied and come back with another project layout that would make more sense at it pertains a specific project for either the entire 4.66 acres or just the 2.33 acres instead of them trying to visually put in front of them what a concept would be when they were trying to evaluate a project that was 2.33 acres and three buildings. He asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, to deny Case Nos. C/Z 00-02 and PP 01-02 and by minute motion instructed staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting on April 17, 2001 . Motion carried 4-0. � G. Case Nos. GPA 00-05, C/Z 00-08 and PP 00-19 - THE MATINEE TRUST, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, General Plan Amendment from medium density residential to high density residential, and a precise plan of design for a 21-unit single story residential project at 44-680 San Carlos and 73-690 De Anza. Mr. Smith stated that the property in question is an irregularly shaped two acre site on the north side of De Anza between San Carlos and San Pascual. He put plans on display, a rendering showing the project from the west. The property was presently vacant and comprised of four single family lots. To the north were existing single family dwellings on large residential lots. To the south there was vacant property, a single family dwelling, a CVWD well site and a health club. To the east was a single family area, to the west there were single story apartments, and to the southwest there was an office building and the future JFK Foundation Children's Clinic. The project before the commission involved a general plan amendment and change of zone to increase the density on the site and a precise plan of design for a 21-unit �.. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 ; .� single story apartment project. The general plan change would increase the property from medium density residential 5-7 units per acre into the high density category of 7-18 units per acre, although the project in question was in the medium portion of the high density range at approximately 10.5 units per acre. Secondly the request was to go from the R-1 18,000 zone category to R-2 which permits up to one dwelling unit for every 4,000 square feet of property which the applicant was requesting. The property is located between R-1 zoned lots and R-3 zoned property. As such the R-2 zone with an intermediate density of 10.5 units per acre provided an appropriate transition between the more intensive commercial and multifamily uses to the southwest and the single family uses to the north. Traffic volumes were increasing on De Anza Way. It was a connector street between San Pablo and Portola. These lots had not developed up to now. While the area to the north had developed with single famify homes to the west of the apartments. Additionally there was a petition signed by 1 1 residents on San Carlos asking that if the project proceeded that the San Carlos portion of the street be cul-de-sacced just north of the project to prevent vehicle access to the north. He said that six units would front onto San Carlos with garages along San Carlos. Each of the units had one garage parking space and an open driveway parking space and private ,.�i front patio lawn areas. There were three garages at the north end to serve the units to the east. Along De Anza there were five units proposed with a similar parking arrangement and patios. These units and the San Carlos units would back onto a large pool/recreation/barbeque area. Along De Anza there was also another three-car garage. By including the distinct single story units fronting onto the street with front yards and garages, the project more closely resembles an attached single family development than a typical inward facing multifamily design. The parkway would include a six-foot curb side street planter and sidewalk to further reinforce the residential character. Each of the 21 units would be two bedroom with 1 ,006 square feet of living space single story structures at 15'8" in height. Two piece mission clay tile roofs with connecting garage sections that would be flat roofed. As indicated, the plan includes a proposal to create a cul-de-sac on the San Carlos right-of-way. All the single family dwellings to the north would exit to the north and the subject project would take access south of the cul-de-sac and would not have access to the north. There would be a fire access gate permitting easy emergency vehicle access. This was reviewed by the Fire Department and they have some design concerns but not with the concept. It was something that could be worked out. The project landscape received preliminary approval by ARC. Perimeter landscaping would be "Desert Willow" style while the central � 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 �... courtyard on which 16 of the 21 units would back and/or front would be a more lush green area. In addition, ARC requested a revision to one portion of the street frontage along De Anza to increase the landscape depth. They felt that would be a superior situation and staff would be getting revised plans from the applicant. ARC approved the landscaping and the architecture preliminarily subject to the applicant taking necessary steps to remove the fire wall extensions that were shown in the elevations. Secondly, reworking the triangular area, and increasing some detailing around the sliding glass doors in the rears of the units. At the time the report was written one letter was received from a resident north on San Pascual who opposed the project due to its density. A second letter was received today and was distributed to commission. Staff recommended approval of the application since the project being in the low to mid range of the high density residential categories was consistent with the neighborhood. The area to the west, southwest and south was already zoned R-3 and that permitted densities up to 17.5 units per acre. The single story 15'8" high structures were consistent with the existing heights in the neighborhood. The project more resembled an attached single family development than most apartment projects which were typically two ,,,,,,, stories and 24 feet in height. Eleven residents on San Carlos have submitted a petition supporting the project if San Carlos is closed with a cul-de-sac and the applicant revised the plans to make the cul-de-sac possible. The project has been designed with many of the driveways accessing what would become a dead-end street, San Carlos. Along De Anza, while there would be four curb cuts, this was over a distance of over 440 feet. The matter was reviewed for compliance with CEQA and it was determined that the project would not have an adverse effect on the environment. A draft Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared and staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend its certification to the City Council. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that staff was in favor of cul- de-saccing San Carlos north of the project. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Lopez asked if that would be included as part of the conditions of approval. Mr. Drell explained that it was part of the design of the project as submitted. The design includes the cul-de-sac and the basic condition of all approvals was that they follow design so it was inherent in the proposal. If the commission wanted it reinforced as a specific condition that could be done. Mr. Greenwood informed commission that it was included in Public Works Condition No. 4. �.. 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICK JOHNSON, 40-490 Desert Creek Lane in Rancho Mirage, addressed the commission. He said that they have worked long and hard on this project and was glad that they had ARC and staff's support on this case. They had been working on this for about a year now and were appreciative of staff's and ARC's help and direction and had no problem with any of the conditions. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. JOE BERNARD stated that he resides at 44-525 San Pascual and owns 44-493 San Pascual. He said he built his house there about ten years ago. He said that in the last ten years the traffic has gone up tremendously. At 3:30 p.m. they could count 40-50 cars going in front , of his house. He has two kids and he was very concerned. San ' Pascual has a turn. The person who rents his house on a long-term „� lease basis has three young kids. He asked how people would get to Fred Waring if they close San Carlos. Since last year a commercial building was built down the street at the end of San Pascual and the traffic has only begun to increase again and it was only beginning to be filled out. There was no left turn on Fred Waring off of San Pascual so anyone from those apartments that wanted to take a short cut on Fred Waring used San Pascual. It had been a major problem and tires were squealing day and night. The traffic was his main concern and when he built his house there he did it because of the size of the lot and because it was pretty quiet and he always felt it would stay residential. Traffic had been increasing. Anyone going east would take San Pascual, not San Pablo. There were quite a few things there and traffic would increase and he was against the project. MR. ERIC BALTZAR thanked the commission for the opportunity to address them. He requested that Mr. Smith put the photos of the units that he had been shown earlier in Mr. Smith's office which he felt did not depict the current artist's concept of something that was glorious and grandeur. The ones he saw were very plain, dull, ugly, jammed up � with one car space per unit and he asked the mail lady what problems � 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 �r.. came with her and she said there were up to 14 different last names in these kind of units. They couldn't forward mail because they were transients and were coming and going all the time and they didn't know how many. Across the street there was a 55-gallon drum in the back yard with a fire going in the winter time to keep people warm. People couldn't all fit in the house. They needed a buffer between R-3, R-2 and R-1 . This was the buffer zone. They didn't want the zone changed. He said these units were very flat, there was one door, one window and the ones he saw appeared to have more of a flat roof and was something that when he comes out of his house he didn't want to look at. The units were small and they were against the zoning. The traffic was al�eady too fast and the cars bounce when they hit the drainage area. They bounce and they hear the bumpers hitting the street. They could see people spinning out and it was a dangerous corner. More cars wouldn't help. They have electrical problems and they were talking about brown outs. Did they want to add more high density so more people could use air conditioning with lesser quality homes and lesser insulation so they could run more often? He said it ,r,r didn't make sense. Crime seemed to be up in the desert more than in other cities. He said they shouldn't add more and more of these type of dwellings that seem to be adding to the problem they already have in the neighborhood with kids defacing property, breaking automobile windows parked along the streets and those kinds of things. His home was appraised in the last year and it was worth S275,000. He was just a littte under 6,000 square feet of coverage. He didn't want something that was a 1 ,000 square feet with one parking garage that was made for a small car that wouldn't fit a regular passenger car comfortably opening both doors. He didn't think tF�is was fair or right. Somehow the city seemed to be pushing for the type of dwellings they had at Highway 111 and EI Paseo. That was a monster building that hid a landmark. Where Jet Copy was and the TV station before that was now Canyon Bank and he asked if they had seen the density and the difficulty parking. The building approved on Highway 74 above EI Paseo was a monstrously ugly site coming into town that the commission approved. He said he would like to preserve the desert and he would like to stop and think about the family aspect of the desert. They have the most beautiful area of the desert and the largest lots for families and for children and the average lot where he was right now was about 100 x 200. They were talking about putting in little bitty postage stamps ... 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 7s tf L � and bringing more people in and making things less valuable. More and more transient property. They would like to maintain them because there wasn't going to be any more lots the size of theirs that he knew of and the price figure was less than what a smaller house on a smaller piece of property like over by the high school was selling for. He felt they should try and preserve what they have. The height was always a problem, parking was always a problem, the general plan for the city worried him. It appeared they were going from the Town Center to Deep Canyon and from Highway 1 1 1 to Fred Waring trying to make this a commercial type environment and they were opposed. He said that Betty was going to address the commission and she had 49 people on her list that signed a petition against this project. But they were on the other side of the cul-de-sac that wou4d have to look at it. 4f they were on the down side, the north side, he didn't mind either because they could close his street off. He has been there 31 years and when he purchased his home the city was just becoming a city and that was one of the things they were going to do. Where the Taxi Cab parking lot is was an awful eyesore with wrecked cars in there and from time to time � they have to clean it up because it gets pretty bad. The traffic from r,,,� what used to be Wise's Racquetball Courts is hideous and they were going to add more commercial. He said there were times when people park on the corner and they couldn't go around the corner safely or see people walking between automobiles. That was what they already had. When Betty got up to address the commission, she would show the commission 49 people that were opposed to it and there were several more here. He hoped the commission would decline the request and allow them to preserve their desert and allow them to have enough land to live, to enjoy and to take full advantage of a windless area, sand free area, relatively traffic free area so they didn't have to keep moving toward the blow sand area and getting to worse and worse conditions because the city has commercialized that area which they have considered their homes. MS. BETTY CRAWFORD, 44-560 San Pascual, stated that she lives across the street from the gentleman that just spoke. She said that she sent the petition around. One of the gentleman in the block wrote it out for her and she went up and down and checked with loads of people. She wasn't able to get to everyone, but 49 people were not very happy ' with what was designed and ready to go. (See copy of petition � ar1 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 � attached hereto.) They were all concerned about actually De Anza and San Pascual. Ever since Portola was dug up and the road work was done, people found out they could go from Fred Waring, San Pascual, and De Anza all the way to the mall so they had a steady stream constantly for approximately three years now since Portola was dug up and resurfaced. The people who signed the petition all felt that the R-1 was much better for their area. They have nice homes on good sized lots and 90-95% were well kept. They maintain the places, their foliage was taken care of, the yards are mowed and they just couldn't see that many units that close to theirs and changed from an R-1 to an R-2. They weren't happy with that at all. She said she has never found out what kind of a clientele they were expecting to go into these units. It didn't appear that there would be enough of a playground or area if there were small children. If there were high school kids they would create more traffic. The plans say in the lower right-hand corner that there are 46 parking spaces. There were only 29 garages and spaces on the inside of the unit and asked where the rest of the people would park. Out on the street which would draw crime and they didn't want �,,,, that coming into the area. They wanted to keep it quiet and she had a card from her next door neighbor. He was here, but he had surgery on his heel and was unab�e to stay. He asked her to read his comments. Ms. Crawford did so (see copy attached hereto from Gerry Morrow►. Ms. Crawford said that all the people she talked to didn't want the environment changed from their type of single family homes to this much traffic and this many people in one small area. It didn't appeal to anyone she talked to. They all felt this should not be done. MS. KATHY QUIRK, 73-755 Catalina Way, at the corner of Catalina Way and San Pascual. She stated that she has lived there since October of 1977. She moved there and there was nothing around her and it was wonderful. Now since they have done the reconstruction of Portola, which she thought was about five or six years ago, and now the traffic was just terrible. It was atrocious and they have a four-way stop sign at the corner of Catalina and San Pascual. Ninety percent all day people were running this stop sign. They have kids on bikes and it was getting bad. With the medical building on Fred Waring and San Pascual that wasn't even a quarter full that was going to make it start getting worse since it was the only thoroughfare from Fred Waring. She moved here to live in an R-1 residential area. The gym was low �.. 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 ' � density and wasn't that bad, but if they get these 21 units and all these kids running around it would be disastrous. Now if they wanted to make San Pascual a cul-de-sac that would work. She asked them not to approve the project. MR. CHARLES IMBILLI, 44-555 San Pascual, stated that he lives about a half a block from the proposed project. He said he hand delivered a letter to the Planning Department this morning at approximately 9:00 a.m. and was hoping the commission had a copy of it. (They did.) He said that they are in an R-1 zone with a minimum of 18,000 square feet per unit. He asked why this had come up to change the zoning from R- 1 to R-2 4,000. They were in a wonderful neighborhood and they were an R-1 zoning from Santa Catalina south to Alessandro Street and it was all R-1 and single family homes. He asked why in the world anyone would propose to put in 21 units a half a block from where he lives he couldn't understand. They invested here because it is a beautiful area and was R-1 single family homes. They have lived at this address approximately 20 years. They have enjoyed the nice peaceful � atmosphere and they have made large investments in their properties. They were deeply concerned over this proposed zone change. Also, the traffic problem was a large concern for all of them. It was bad enough as it is. They are in a 25 mph speed limit zone but the traffic moves at 40-50 mph, and would be adding 21 families, probably 100% rentals. Tenants didn't have an investment. Heaven only knew how they would treat their neighbors. He didn't feel that their investment should be jeopardized by allowing a 21-unit rental community in this area to be developed which would hurt their values tremendously. Speaking for he and his wife, he wanted to go on record as being very opposed to this project. He requested denial of the application. MR. BILL SIDLER, 44-530 San Carlos, stated that he circulated the petition that the commission had in their packets from the residential property owners on San Carlos. He said he has owned his home on San Carlos since 1974 and two other residents of San Carlos were with him tonight and bought their homes at the same time. As had been discussed earlier they are in a residential area surrounded by some other uses, however, they have large lots and most of the properties are well i maintained. They bought their property in the anticipation that the area would continue to develop as a residential area. When they first heard 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 � about this project his neighbors and he had concerns about this project. Concerns about the zone change from essentially what could be four homes built in this area to 21 units. They were concerned about the traffic, noise and safety. They would to look at the way that San Pascual had been described and San Carlos both were winding roads. They had a safety concern with speeding cars. However, they met with the developer and with the city and the developer was willing to go to the expense to cul-de-sac the street which would essentially split the multi uses on San Carlos from their residential homes. San Carlos was technically not a through street. San Carlos dead ends at Catalina and the traffic they get on San Carlos was mainly from residents, some from the Senior Center, and from the multifamily uses at De Anza and that caused them most of their safety and traffic concerns. The petition was from all the residential property owners, minus one. They were in a situation where the city would like to develop housing of this size and this value and they recognized that there are multi-unit apartments on one side of San Carlos at the south end. They realized that at the back end of his property, which abuts this project on the east which was part r,.,, of his back yard, directly in back of him also was a multifamily use. They were in an unusual situation. After reviewing the project and spending a considerable amount of time with the developer on where the units would be placed and their concerns, and with the inclusion of the cul-de-sac, the project had their support. He asked that the commission read the paragraph at the beginning of their petition because that was how their approval was conditioned. MR. BOB MANDIC, 73-755 Catalina, stated that with this many buildings going in they already had a traffic problem. They had small residential streets and didn't have any four lane highways or anything close to it. On every one of these corners there weren't stop lights, but stop signs. In the morning going to work there could be six cars back trying to get out because on the left-hand side was Portola which was a very busy street and sometimes they could wait three to five minutes. It was the same way on the right-hand side going to San Pablo. It wasn't accommodating and the city fathers designed this area as R-1 . The proposed project would make things worse. Some people didn't want this but couldn't come to the meeting. They had a petition signed but some of them couldn't be there. i.. 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 ,� � MR. RICH RYAN, 44-515 San Carlos, stated that he has been a resident for the past 12 years. He said that for the concerns with traffic, the entire city of Palm Desert has grown so much since he has lived here. He has looked at that vacant lot for the past 12 years with trash on it and bottles and nothing being built and looking at the project, he felt it had been designed very nicely and would add to their area. There would be a little more traffic, but they would have traffic from the Children's Clinic and other developments in that area along Alessandro. Sooner or later they had to realize that the city was growing and all the areas were growing and when they got a project of this caliber that is as nice as this, and he has quite an investment on San Carlos and put 5200,000 worth of improvements into it and he felt this project would add to the area and there were a lot of people who believed it would be a plus. MS. BELVA BALTZAR, 44-750 San Pascual, said that she appreciated what the people on San Carlos were saying, but they had already built in a cul-de-sac. If they had a cul-de-sac on San Pascual, then that � would also eliminate some of the traffic they were fighting. They were looking at two sides of the coin. Right now the traffic was going up and down San Pascual and De Anza. San Carlos was supporting because they have a cul-de-sac. If the cul-de-sac weren't there, she doubted the project would have their support either. MS. PAMELA ZUNDEL, 44-461 San Pascual, said that she didn't have anything new to add and wished she had a secret to give because they would all love to have that property developed, but the idea of putting that high of a density in the area was offensive. It was a concern because it is a family living area. On the other side of the street were businesses. That wasn't a problem and they understood that when they bought there. But to change the zoning to high density was a great concern. Chairperson Lopez asked if Mr. Johnson would like to readdress the commission. Mr. Johnson said that he appreciated everyone coming out. They started looking at this site and happened to start on San Carlos. Then they moved down De Anza and talked to Bob Downs, who had since 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 r.. moved his home, and they couldn't get everywhere. The name of their project is Cayman Court Garden Condos. Their objective from day one, and Mr. Drell could attest to this, had been to develop the site as condominiums. For various reasons regarding acquisition of the site and financing, etc., it was determined to proceed with an apartment site that would eventually move into a condominium development. He was building this project to hold it himself. But ultimately every property would be sold and in that light they wanted to develop it as condominiums. Staff could reaffirm that it is a high security type of project such that only residents could come into the project either through their gated courtyards along the various streets or in the one parking area shown on the sketches by Mr. Smith. So speaking to the question of what type of client they were looking for with their project, they weren't looking for a family. They built a lot of these very similar units in Bermuda Dunes and some in Palm Desert and they maintain that type of profile typically. ff they were to rent, they would rent in the S 1 ,200 to S 1 ,400 per month range. He couldn't expect everyone here to know that because he hadn't spoken to all of them. They didn't �, understand his project fully. He thought that one of the gentleman on San Carlos hit it when he said that property has been there a long time and it was a very challenging site from the standpoint of residential. Trying to develop any type of single family residential that would even fit into the 18,000 square foot lot size that fits with the adjacent homes wouldn't happen if he wasn't here anyway. The Iots weren't big enough to warrant that. He didn't want to come across as insensitive in any way to their concerns. It was a transition area and they thought it had a lot of inerit. They still did and they were willing to cul-de-sac every street in town if that would do any good. They were committed to this project and wanted a quality project. It was a very expensive project and their break even on this was S 138,000 a unit. Break even per dwelling. Obviously they weren't looking to sell them for S 138,000, they wanted to make some money, and they were committed to the neighborhood. He really felt for the traffic concerns that they were all facing on a daily basis. The frustration was there for him as well in the desert as a whole. They put their best foot forward on this and worked with staff and were looking to find any kind of compromise that might get this project developed. �.. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Tschopp started off by saying that a cul-de-sac was a fancy name for a dead end. It never eliminated traffic, it just forced traffic down another street. He has seen this many times before in other places in the city. It would do the same thing here. A cul-de-sac on San Carlos doesn't work unless there was one on San Pascual and then the other street to the west before San Pablo. But they probably would end up cul-de-saccing most of the streets in that area. That didn't work for residents and didn't make it convenient for them. For him that wasn't an answer and wouldn't work in this area. He said he wasn't sure if the applicant sold the project to the neighbors, but a lot of them didn't seem to understand what the app{icant was trying to do. He didn't know if that was a mistake or an oversight, but at this point in time he felt the neighbors had a right when they bought a house to know what was going in next to them, to know what the zoning was and do the research. They have a right to know that was what would go in there. , Unless the person proposing a change also proposed ways to eliminate their � concerns. Commissioner Campbell said that any place someone bought a home and there was vacant land, even though it is zoned R-1 for residential, down the line it was uncertain if that would go in there. Like this piece of land, as Mr. Johnson said it didn't seem feasible for single family residences for the value of the property. She has been here 15 Y2 years and has seen that vacant land. The project the way it was presented and if it came out looking like the drawings looked very nice. For the monthly rentals that Mr. Johnson they would ask from S 1 ,200 to $1 ,400 per month was pretty steep rent and that was sometimes a mortgage payment for some people. The city is growing and there are traffic problems. Not allowing this project wouldn't solve the traffic problems in the city. Commissioner Jonathan said that he didn't know if he was going to be much help because he was struggling with two issues. On the one hand he was extremely sensitive to the neighbors' concerns because basically they were there first. They have been there and invested and they have a right to expect that what would be buiit in their neighborhood was consistent with the general plan and zoning that existed when they moved in and he felt they had that � right, which was a reasonable expectation. On the other hand, the departure � 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 `.. from their expectations wasn't significant. They weren't suggesting a bowling alley or gas station or some kind of commercial use. It is residential and the change of zone goes from medium density which would allow up to 14 units to high density, which is 21 . That's a 50% increase and that's substantial but it's within the context of residential. The thing that was pulling him was that the project was nicely designed and would probably enhance the neighborhood. The concerns that the neighbors have are valid. Of course it would increase traffic, but so would 14 homes or any kind of development on there. There's a part of us that doesn't want to see anything developed because we're here now and anything more is going to sfightly detract from what we moved in for and from what brought us here. He understood that as a resident. They might want to freeze things and say that Palm Desert is perfect right now and not develop another thing, but that wasn't going to happen. People own property and they own vacant land and they have a right to develop. He said he was struggling with these two issues. Ideally he wished this was a project that was presented sufficiently and effectively enough to the residents that they could have not just some support, but overwhelming support. That would be an ideal situation. He said he would ,,,�, like to give the applicant another chance with the residents to talk about specific concerns for this two-acre parcel and see how together those concerns could be solved. Because someone would do something with this property and he felt they should work together to see if they could take advantage of this opportunity to develop in a way that would make everyone happy. If maybe they could provide the applicant with a little bit more time to do that, maybe everyone could win and the applicant could be successful in that regard. If not, they knew they had given it their best shot and then they would have to make a tough decision. He was in favor of a continuance to allow the applicant another opportunity to present his project to the neighborhood. Chairperson Lopez said he also had a tough time with this project. Having lived here 22 years and he was an original member of the Wise Palm Desert Athletic Club and he has seen that property vacant since he has lived here. Nothing has really happened to that area and he has seen it fluctuate there including all the stuff that kind of builds up in that area and garbage, which he was sure people complained about and then it got taken away. But he didn't know what would go there better than this project from the appearance, the presentation and the looks. It at least provides an alternative to what might never get there and continues to be vacant lots, and he thought vacant lots :.. 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 could create a lot of problems for the youth, for the safety and for a lot of reasons. He thought this project could be a good alternative for that area. When he first looked at the site he thought about leaving one vacant lot for a home, but again he didn't know if that would ever work in the future. He struggled with it and had to take to heart the individuals in the area and all the work they put into this, but he didn't know if it was going to get any better. Having lived this long in this area and watched the traffic build, watched the growth and watched the development, it was tough from the mid part of December through May and June, then it was relatively sensible around here for the summer as far was traffic is concerned, expect sometimes for the weekends and then into the fall. Once the golf courses were closed and there was overseeding, there was no one around here. A lot had to do with the folks who come to visit the area versus the ones who {ive here and that created a lot of the traffic problems they have. He thought this was a good alternative and tended to be in favor of the project with the understanding that the cul-de-sac would be there. He was in favor of the project. He asked for a motion. Commissioner Campbell asked if he would make that in the form of , a motion. Chairperson Lopez agreed. � � Action: It was moved by Chairperson Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion died on a 2-2 vote (Commissioners Jonathan and Tschopp voted no1. Commissioner Jonathan said that he had similar feelings. He wasn't far removed from either side and concurred with the Chairperson Lopez's comments. But being kind of the eternal optimist, he would like to get greater neighborhood support. He said he would propose the possibility and would make a motion to continue the matter for one month to give the applicant enough time to communicate a little more with the neighborhood. Chairperson lopez reopened the public hearing. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, to continue this matter one month to May 1 , 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. _ 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 �.. 6. Case No. CUP 01-05 - JAE HOON KIM, Applicant Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a 1 ,600 square foot martial arts school located at the northwest corner of Cook Street and Velie Way, 42-005 Cook Street, Unit 102. Commission discussed the possibility of continuing this item to a future meeting. The conclusion of the discussion was to go forward with the case. Mr. Drell stated that the commission had the staff report and asked if there were any questions. Chairperson Lopez asked how long the martial arts school had been. Mr. Drell wasn't aware that it was open. Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and noted that no one was present to represent the applicant or to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing. Commissioner Campbe!! didn't feel that there would be a parking problem �, during the hours the school would be open. No other uses in the area were open except for the market on the corner and Mamacita's across the street. This use would be open from 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. with 10 to 15 students, so she would be in favor and would move for approval. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that parking in this area is terrible. It wasn't this applicant's fault and wasn't the city's fault. It had been there from the County and he didn't feel they could deny this project. He agreed with Commissioner Campbell that with the proposed hours of operation it made the best possible solution because it complemented the other uses. Commissioner Tschopp agreed. He also noted that parking was a problem and would probably only get worse in the future. Chairperson Lopez said that originally he had some concerns when they were talking about the kids and the hours in the evening but they were alleviated. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. � 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 � � � .� It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2059, approving CUP 01-05, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (March 21 , 2001 ) Commissioner Campbell said they reviewed the video sculpture by Eric Orr and it would be for placement at the hotel site at Desert Willow. They reviewed it and would actually look at it more closely to see if they wanted to have a piece more in line with the Desert Willow and desert area. The rest was informational only. -. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) � C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (April 3, 2001 ) Mr. Drell said that they were looking at alternative artistic designs for the new wall which would be on the south side of Fred Waring. There would be an eight-foot wall when they widen the street and they were looking at interesting designs. They still hadn't made a decision on that. They looked at some improvements and extra shading that would go in at The Gardens. They would put some paths through the desert garden in the middle. There was also an art piece going in at the Monterey Interchange which would go into the center median and they reviewed the landscaping on both sides to complement the art piece. F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) � 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2001 i.. G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONtNG ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Lopez commended the commission on their patience and discussed enforcing time limits for speakers. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was a way and if it was appropriate when they have issues like this when a lot of people show up and make them wait until the last thing. He asked if there was a way to adjust the agenda early enough to address those concerns and get them out. Mr. Drell said that staff thought some of the early items were going to get done sooner and didn't want to have to make those individuals that had projects that should only take a few minutes wait through the long issue. On the other hand the commission, when they saw a large audience, could reorder the items on the agenda. He pointed out that staff had only received one letter on that one case. Mr. Smith concurred that staff had w�. no idea there were going to be so many people. Chairperson Lopez said that was a good idea and he honestly didn't think that the items going ahead of it were going to be very long. XII. QDJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. ----�"-�"`" -�,t-' PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATT T: JIM Z, Cha' r n Palm sert Plan ing ommission /tm � 47 ��c��P a�-Pe We the following residents of and or about the vicinity of San Pascuol Avenue, DeAnza, San Carlos Avenue, San Rafael Avenue, and Allessandro, Palm Deserf �3�� California, formally oppose the proposed project, commonly referred to as: Cayman Court Garden Condos G PA00-05,C/Z00-OS P P00-19 Rick Johnson, Construction Company, Contractor or��e following grounds; 1) an inordinate amount of increased traffic in the vicinity where traffic speeds are routinely unmonitored and unenforced; 2)the proposed density for that small acreage is not in keeping with the "neighborhood" format of ihe surrounding area. 3) low income housing and thoughtless density planning moy lecad to depressed market values for the neighborhood (real estate). printed name address signature ��a �1.�r-�c�� ���bl Rc�.0 n �e� �• �RAw R� �'`�5ba d A�J �A-s�c,�.9-� / � o,� �12,4 wr=oJ�p y/}�S6 ri Sf}nI �!f S C � R� �JoA��, I�,,�b;l ,� � sss �k f45�.u�.l � ` � �L�,S I L U if S S s N �Gl1/�� ' t i o 1' � �f 5 ��t� e� ,p r,—�, -S'i�lc:r�.l'� n� Gf�f-5 3i fA�v �i9-� e�r�L � > � k-�� .� � _ . �� ��.v - ��E � � �o� ��.�/�s�u.q � � o I � �J3�v�� � , � '- ,� ,- ra�. ; . � c�� � �, . vw��-e �'- i;,. � 7 -7Sf1 i e �r.z� vwucl� � e�„� ��.�il�i���d 73-7.58 I r �n�.� �h .�l � t-Z � y 7�� s P ' ' �. -�e. � Q � � v� J� so-+�, ra. ck.a -(� G L FiC,Q E ��.�- y�+s-a.� �ti �.o fl T Q.0 ,e k � .� �.�- ��� ����:.�� "J g m a�+, . �.�-�rt �_.�..�� 1�-- t� �� ,` c���. n� ,�� � ' _` N T � ���✓ � 6� �,� t� u,�t . March 2001 We the following residents of and or about the vicinity of San Pascual Avenue, DeAnza, San Carlos Avenue, San Rafael Avenue, and Allessandro, Palm Deserf California, formally oppose the proposed project, commonly referred to as; Cayman Court Garden Condos GPA00-05,C/Z00-0$PP00-19 Rick Johnson, Construction Company, Contractor on the following grounds: 1) an inordinate amount of increased traffic in the vicinity where traffic speeds are routinely unmonitored and unenforced; 2)the proposed density for that small acreage is not in keeping with the "neighborhood" format of the surrounding area. 3) low income housing and thoughtless density planning may lead to depressed market values for the neighborhood (real estate). printed name address signature R �� �nI �� � /�. �"� �v �m D�s��-i � ,���M�aJ a � ¢r�� �3 7�.G �4e Bn=Q w�•- r�<�i��s���� !v�/ /�Q,�.s� ' �� - ���,'� � � � kl 7S �SA �u � '��. ,�►'�`,�, (^, � ��f �� 7 s� S � 7���-.. -���,�'-.,�-�� � � � ��,��..i S'r�.v -y�-gs$ �a,�.�u ,4c,�. / G1/ . /,bN F ST�/N • b. GA. G= �I C,v��e�..-� �J��c�.�-�h �� �a�-� �_C��, �.-Q.�(1P—'�--�1�1�`C n ��'4"9'� 5 4�J �c.pr N�c� P ru�—;_.�s#'I e 11L�1 �l � , � , ' `� 50 D ' ��r�. 1�� lJ I� -�fk8" Sc, �S�o� �f . ','��'�! f� . � , � o �yy� s� Q� . �- � � ��ss s�.� _ � l� ,�� � �y����� ��1vS�V� ', � � _ - '� '� r � � ,� ✓ ��i,r.f � ,, ._ _ � March 2001 JUe the following residents of and or about the vicinity of San Pascual Avenue, DeAnza, San Carlos Avenue, San Rafael Avenue, and Allessandro, Palrn Desert �alifornia, formally oppose the propo�ed project, commonly referred to as: Cayman Cburt Garden Condos G PA00-05,C/Z00-08 PP00-19 Rick Johnson, Construction Company, Controctor or��e following grounds: 1) an inordinate amount of increased traffic in the vicinity where traffic speeds are routinely unmonitored ond unenforced; 2) the proposed density for that small acreage is not in keeping with the "neighborhood" format of the surrounding area. 3) low income housing and thoughtless density planning may lead to depressed market values for the neighborhood(reaf estate). printed name address signature r ��t✓1 3 � �h,,� � • `137�f8 �.G-r�`i.L - � �3�'�$ ��n za � ��n h�� �,11 i��P Z�l.r o-=, `f y�ol �R h f�Q.�e4a t �s.���/,��v.�--�..._ i / SJ° % 7�d� c> //'I�Cd�i.(,., r � Y rn �'n �� a,� ' � �-0 yu�`�'I Srs� u � _� March 2001 � MEETIl�IG DATE: SPEAKERS Oral Communications and/or Public Iiearings If you are attcnding the City Council Meeting to address the City Council,whcthcr it is a scheduled Agenda item or comments under oral communications,please complete the following information and give it to the C`ity Cler � in advance of the meeting. Thank you. NAME: L�lrN �Dfrd� ADDRESS: ��/.��.�- �Er K �cr cr'Q r,�1 I WOUI.D LIKE TO SPEAK UNDER � `�" � � •+ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ,�sovr �e� ��c� ��.� e�� �'`� d`�' c`�`�oS � AGENDA TTEM � � -O - � .�r�L PUBLiC HEARING �.9-�i/r�.v �/ �Lw�- Q C�o.v IN FAVOR OF OPPOSED TO�(CHECK ONE) Completion of this card is volnntary. You may attend and participate in the meeting regardtess of whether or not yau complete this dociur►ent. Its purpose is to sid staff in caanpiling complete and accuzate reca�d�. Tbank you for your cou�tesy and cooperation. . '� �- . . � ` � � . � J . ( � Y (�► � � V �`r\ � . S � N ` � ! \ • � l ! ` � � � • � -1�` ` � � V � . � � � � � � � � �, � .� , �- � � `� . � - � g : � � � � . �� , � � y ' � � � � � � � � : '� � � , � � . '� G . , �`n � l os • � � � � � 0 � � � ' � �� � � � � � � � � -� � � � � � , . � � � � �- � � �, � . ►� � �� � �o � 4 � � a � , � �� � �� � � � � � � (� i � � � ' U �V