Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0619 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY -JUNE 19, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chairperson Cindy Finerty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Dave Tschopp Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associates Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the June 5, 2001 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson Lopez, approving the June 5, 2001 minutes. Motion carried 2-0-2 (Commissioners Campbell and Finerty abstained). MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 t V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION too Mr. Drell summarized pertinent June 13, 2001 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. ROBERT STONICK, 41965 Hemingway Court in Palm Desert, stated that he had a question for the commission. He has been in Palm Desert for ten years and he kept reading about skate parks, volleyball parks, soccer parks and there are two great swimming pool facilities, one at COD and one at Palm Desert. They are swimming pools that are not open to the public and the residents pay the taxes. He question was about opening things up and putting pressure on people so that they could do some recreational swimming and lap swimming. Mr. Drell said that his understanding was that the COD pool was somewhat open to the public. He stated that the City contributed some money into refurbishing it and staff could inquire with the school district. He explained that at one time the City was pursuing its own municipal pool but the swimming community basically said that they wanted an indoor pool or no pool. The price tag of an indoor pool is $3 or $4 million. That had been turned over to the YMCA and they were trying to pursue fund raising. Mr. Stonick said he talked to the YMCA ten years ago and they told him they would have a pool within two years. He didn't think that was the issue. There were facilities available. He belonged to many swimming clubs, Kaufman High, El Camino College, but here they wouldn't let people use them. He thought it should be looked into. Mr. Drell agreed. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 01-21 - ROBERT AND JUDY REED AND JAMES FOXX, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust the west line of Lot 6, Palma Village #12, to correct a building encroachment, 73-061 and 73-071 Fred Waring Drive. i 2 to MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 r.. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, 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. Remarks may be limited to a maximum of five minutes. A. Case Nos. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 - THE FOUNTAINS, Applicant (Continued from May 15, 2001) Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a general plan amendment and change of zone to add "Senior Overlay" to the existing PR-10 zoning and a precise plan of design for conversion of the existing assisted living facility into a skilled nursing facility and addition of 52 assisted living units, 32 independent living casitas, and 21 Alzheimer beds. Said additional units will be located on 6.6 acres on the existing Carlotta site on the west side of Carlotta Drive, north of Hovley Lane, 41-505 Carlotta Drive. Chairperson Lopez noted that this was an open continued public hearing and asked for staffs report. Mr. Smith stated that there was a revised site plan. The southerly existing gate would be located further to the west to allow for additional stacking. Also, the applicant was proposing to add a third ingress/egress at the north limit of the property. In association with the work on the north gate, the applicant has been working with Public Works staff to come up with a landscape scheme for the triangular area to the north to help dress up that end of the street. The existing southerly gate would have a new system, a more quiet, efficient system. In addition, there was a condition that the southerly gate be left open during shift changes so that employees could `AW 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 enter and exit in an efficient manner. During the continuance, the applicant conducted a traffic count and a copy was given to commission. At the peak morning hour the count showed 15 vehicles entering/exiting the property. The applicant has had discussions with the Fire Department. He was advised that the Fire Department agreed to dispense with the emergency lights once they have arrived at the site and instead of parking in the southerly driveway, they will park toward the center of the site in the service area. He pointed out the location of the service area and explained that they would enter through the southerly gate and instead of parking along that driveway, they would pull in and park toward the center. Mr. Smith said that the applicant also did a view analysis of the proposed buildings. Regarding parking, 290 spaces were required by code and the new facility would have 320 spaces onsite. The applicant advised today that they have done parking counts at the facility and currently they have 201 parking spaces onsite and during their counts they averaged around 120 cars parked there - a little over 50% occupied. At the last meeting there were concerns about unshielded lights and he had been advised that those had been corrected and they were now shielded. The applicant held a meeting with the neighbors. While they haven't come to an agreement, there were some people who had been ' satisfied and others that still had some items they wanted to discuss. Staffs recommendation was a recommendation of approval to the City Council, subject to the conditions. He noted that on page 9 of the development agreement, Item C should reflect age 55, not age 62. That was an error that needed correction. Chairperson Lopez observed that it was his understanding that the recommendation is that hours of delivery would remain at the suggested time of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Mr. Smith said that was staffs recommendation. It was his understanding that the applicant would request some variation to that. Commissioner Tschopp asked who the parking inside the Carlotta was for specifically. Mr. Smith said for residents and employees. Commissioner Tschopp asked how many cars would be accommodated by the stacking area at the south gate. Mr. Smith said it was about 200 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification on the hours of construction since the delivery hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. She asked if it was 7:00 a.m. or 7:30 a.m. for gardeners and construction workers. Mr. Smith said it J 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 varies through the year. During the winter October through April 7:00 a.m. and May through September 6:00 a.m. Property maintenance fell within a separate category from construction, 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Campbell asked what time construction workers could begin construction work right now. Mr. Smith said 6:00 a.m. for summer, the rest of the year 7:00 a.m. The ordinance read 8:00 to 5:30 for gardeners. Chairperson Lopez asked if the applicant would like to address the commission with an update. MR. TODD PRATT with the Fountains stated that the team put their heads together and met with the neighbors a couple of times. He thought they were very close with a number of the traffic issues and noise issues that were raised. They considered themselves a long- term 15 year neighbor and intended to maintain that relationship in the community. They were trying their best to blend in. Included in the packet was a list of some of the requests by the neighborhood. Most of the ones on the front page were agreed with. They implemented a third gate, revised the south gate, and tried to get the �.. card readers and clickers set up so that the staff and residents could immediately enter the property without blocking traffic on Carlotta. They thought they were at a point now where they have resolved just about all of the traffic issues on Carlotta. They wanted to request that they have a little bit of leeway on the truck deliveries. They have approximately 14 truck deliveries a week and it ranged from zero to four trucks per day. One of the trucks was a semi, a Sisco Food delivery truck. The balance of the trucks were milk or bread delivery type single axle trucks. Typically one would come in the morning and that would be a milk truck and he would like to come in at 7:00 a.m. and then the other trucks would come in the morning or afternoon. They were low intensity users in terms of trucking. They didn't have a lot of heavy deliveries like a supermarket or a heavier commercial user. They don't have a loading dock,just a simple back door and the trucks pull in the back and unload. They would request 7:00 a.m. to accommodate the milk truck. Last meeting there was a question about parking and the number of people onsite. There are currently 200 existing parking stalls. They did a parking count over a three day period and there were approximately 85 parking stalls used at night and 100-120 during the day. That was around a 60% usage of the 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 200 stalls they currently have. With the completion of the proposed build out they would add 119 stalls to the existing 201 stalls for a total of 320 parking stalls. At the same time they anticipated a usage of about 50 cars for the new residents as well as about 20 cars for new staff, for a total of 75 new cars. That was about a 60% usage. He felt they had more than an adequate amount of parking. On the overall population of the campus, there were some questions about how many people live there today versus how many would live there when they are done. Currently there were 225 residents today. With the addition of the new campus,they would add about 124 more potential residents for a total of 349 residents. He noted that 80 of the residents would be in skilled nursing and would not drive, 21 residents would be Alzheimer folks who would not drive, 144 existing apartment residents and about 70% have cars, an additional 32 independent residents with probably a one and a half ratio, and 52 units of assisted living which equated to about 60 more people. There would be a maximum of 3-5 cars for all 60 of the assisted living people. They typically didn't drive. Currently there were 22 assisted living residents and one or two cars. The 349 number was the total campus census at build out which is what they were basing their projection on, from their current population today and adding the new facility. The last item he wanted to address was the question of existing truck traffic with the current campus layout. Currently the trucks enter the south gate and go around to the central courtyard and unload and depart. They laid out their project so that they have the new independent folks next to the existing independent folks and that would create a synergy on their campus with all of their independent residents. There was a small kitchen with a service yard that was back to back with the existing kitchen and service yard allowing the trucks to come in, back in, provide deliveries for both kitchens and then leave. The two story assisted living wing would feed into a common area and would be linked to the existing building because of some common area amenities that would be enjoyed by all the residents on the campus. Typically these residents would need to walk indoors to the common area in an air-conditioned space. There was also a one-story Alzheimer's bungalow that was a secured, stand alone bungalow. There were some questions about elevating the link on a bridge and adding elevators on both sides to allow truck traffic to pass through and perhaps flip the plan and redesign the building. They studied that 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 initially and more recently because some of the adjacent neighbors felt that would alleviate some of the trips. Then they started looking at some of the truck trips and found that they weren't very intensive in their truck trips and that the additional hardship placed on the property by cost and the physical function of going up an elevator, across a bridge and then back down would not be a good solution. He said that they met with Paul Beaty and thought that Mr. Beaty was now in favor of the current design. MS. JULIE FERGUSON, Vice President of Construction and Development for the Fountains based in Tucson, Arizona, stated that in reading the minutes from the prior meeting, they went through and tried to address the very distinct points that the neighbors brought up which related to traffic, parking, landscaping and the noisy gates. There were several measures that Mr. Walker and his staff had already implemented in an attempt to help alleviate some of the concerns of the neighbors. They brain stormed to come up with ways to alleviate the other concerns, hence the gate at the north end to spread out the traffic and direct certain types of traffic. This gate would be strictly for resident access, the middle gate would strictly be ... for visitor access, and the far gate would be strictly for truck delivery and associate/employee access. That would help distribute the traffic that entered their property on a regular basis and attempted to create some areas for stacking. There was a question earlier about how many cars this allowed. The south gate had 90 feet worth of stacking. An average car is 20 feet and she said she didn't know the size of a UPS truck which was the typical size of their delivery truck, but she was guessing that they could put two to three delivery trucks in there and with 90 feet four cars very easily. The north gate was created to have 60 feet which would allow three cars, but given that would be a resident access only they have automatic door openers that let them through the gate immediately. Also, they were leaving their gate open during shift changes to alleviate the traffic on Carlotta Drive. They had already implemented that measure in an attempt to alleviate some of the traffic. Mr. Walker and his staff had also addressed the concern with the lights and noise from the original gate. She wanted to reiterate that they went through the list of issues presented at the last meeting in an attempt to find solutions that worked for them and their neighbors to coexist in the same environment. �.. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 Chairperson Lopez announced that he was not at the meeting of May 15, but had listened to the tape of that public hearing and he would be participating in the discussion and vote on this matter. He also noted that there were many who would like to speak and requested that comments be limited to five minutes or less. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the south gate was 90 feet long for stacking and asked if it was the applicant's intent to allow delivery trucks to park in the stacking area. Ms. Ferguson said no, the intent was that if two delivery trucks happened to show up at the same time, there would be a space for them to wait for the gate to open. They were also implementing a way for the regular vendors to receive a code or gate pass that didn't require them to call the front desk for admission. In theory they should be able to punch in their code and go right through so there shouldn't be any stacking there, but in the off chance that two showed up at the same time at 8:00 a.m. sharp and were sitting there, at least they wouldn't be sitting on Carlotta Drive. Commissioner Tschopp asked if gardeners, maintenance workers, etc., showed up early, if they would be stacking in there or on the street. Ms. Ferguson thought that all of their landscaping crew was in-house, so all of their trucks, service vehicles, all the equipment were all on site. There was no traffic from landscaping trucks or anything of that nature coming in and out of their community. Commissioner Campbell said that when they drive there they arrive in their own cars and asked if they would be using the stacking area. Ms. Ferguson explained that as an associate they would be able to enter the property immediately. If they came at shift change, which they should, the gate would be open. If they didn't they would either have a pass key or code to let them in the gate. Chairperson Lopez asked for an example of who would be required to phone. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 Ms. Ferguson said it would be a visitor to the community who was either coming for a marketing visit who wanted to take a tour of their community or a family member coming to visit a resident. During events, which they have quite frequently, they could arrange to have the gate open so there wouldn't be a constant barrage and if they were having a concert at 4:00 in the afternoon, there wouldn't be a huge line of traffic. Commissioner Campbell asked if the visitors would be using the center gate, not the south or north gates. Ms. Ferguson said that was correct. Someone in the audience asked to be shown where the parking would be located. Mr. Pratt did so. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR. MR. DAVID OVERLAND, a resident of the Carlotta for ten months, informed commission that he is very pleased with the way the Carlotta is run. He said they were trying to be as accommodating to everyone in the neighborhood as possible. He thought the addition would be good for the Carlotta and good for the community. It is a badly needed facility and he had to wait over a year and a half to get in because they were full. This showed the demand and this was an attempt to meet that demand for senior citizens who have reached that stage in life where they don't want to house clean or cook. DR. HAROLD SCHOENFELD, a resident of the Carlotta for almost two years, addressed the commission. He said that prior to that he was a resident of Indian Wells for 30 years and was a retired school superintendent of Desert Sands Unified School District, as well as Palm Springs Unified School District. In answer to the previous question about pools, he suggested that the gentleman talk to the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District because the school district had an agreement with them to turn over their facilities, so it was just a matter of his going to see the manager and the problem would be solved in no time. Dr. Schoenfeld said that when the East Hovley/Carlotta area was approved for senior residents, assisted care w 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 and skilled nursing services by the County Planning Commission, there was no incorporated city of Palm Desert. In fact, there were no homes in this area and Cook Street was a two-lane road. After the Fountains at the Carlotta was constructed, the County Planning Commission approved homes for construction in that area. The existing Fountains layout for the delivery of medical, patient and residential kitchen food supplies was approved with the original planning and construction permits. To change this layout now would be extremely expensive, unethical, impractical, and perhaps illegal. Now no matter what gate they might use, the existing layout required similar stops for delivery of patients and supplies. If the opponents kept with their desire to flip the casitas from north to south, it couldn't change the location of the existing kitchen nor the delivery of emergency patients. As long as the Fire Department used diesel motors and required two trucks to accompany the ambulance, there would always be substantial truck motor noise. Conversion to diesels to compressed hydrogen and natural gas would decrease the motor noise as well as improve the air and they already knew that Sunline as well as Desert Sands School District (who had 13 of the hydrogen compressed gas school buses and six more in the budget for this .. coming year). Unfortunately by providing speed bumps the Fountains management slowed up ambulances, fire trucks and delivery trucks and had thereby added to the duration of truck motor noise, but the management had been helpful in trying to solve these problems for the neighbors. The management of the Carlotta had been extremely cooperative and courteous in meeting all these concerns. For the neighbors who purchased their homes adjacent to the Fountains, the laws of the state regarding disclosure were available to them and perhaps, unfortunately,they should remember Caveat Emptor-Buyer Beware. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MS. KIMBERLY WEBB, 75-730 Dolmar Court, said that she invested a lot of time and preparation in her statement, which was a collaboration of her personal views as well as many in the audience and some who were unable to attend that were opposed to the Fountain's current proposal. She said she was certain to exceed five minutes, but she asked for the commission's indulgence as her 10 a�i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 statement would bear great merit and would alleviate a number of people coming up to repeat the information. They would merely come to the podium and give their name and address in agreement. Although some steps have been taken by the management team coordinating this project on behalf of the Fountains, she said they failed to satisfy some of the most significant issues she raised at the May 15 meeting and at both subsequent meetings held at the Fountains that were raised by herself and others. In spite of the limited changes, she strongly believed that this project would adversely affect their neighborhood without additional revisions. For example, homes immediately adjacent to the Fountains at the Carlotta on the south, the specific residents on Hemingway, Marin Court, Freedom Court, Dempsey and three homes on Carlotta, one on Easy Street and another two on Dolmar Court were already subjected to traffic and associated noise from not only the gate, but diesel engines idling, doors slamming, horns blowing, radios blaring, loud guests or personnel, and flashing lights from emergency rescue vehicles. They also heard from a resident of the Fountains who had similar complaints in addition to dogs barking and kids racing down Carlotta Drive. Most recent changes proposed which they had already pretty much heard have been posted to prohibit loud noises, radios, voices, directions that no engines should idle more than five minutes and need to be turned off if they were going to be in the facility idling, new gate system's gears to allow them to operate more smoothly, quieter, quicker, and modified with rubber rollers, the south gate to be left open during shift changes. All residents, personnel, established delivery trucks and emergency vehicles would have open mechanisms in their possession. Significant is the proposed redesign that they would set back the gate further onto the Fountains property, the south gate where the residents, personnel vehicles, delivery trucks and emergency vehicles would stack up on their site as opposed to stacking up on Carlotta. She said that unfortunately what appeared to be totally lost on those involved with these alterations was that those same homeowners listed above would still be subjected to the noise of vehicles coming and going at all hours, the setback of the gate would do nothing but increase the noise as now there would be two, three and possibly more vehicles now stacked up along that south wall as opposed to those same vehicles which now stack up in the street at a greater distance from those homes. That MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 was one of the greatest concerns. They were stacking up in the street, but the Fire engine comes in, sits there and just rumbles. By allowing three or four now to just sit there and rumble they had three vehicles as opposed to one which was of great concern to Annette Andersen at the May 15 meeting. Another critical issue presented at the May 15 Planning Commission meeting was the problems the neighborhood already has with speeders literally racing down Carlotta Drive. At the June 18 meeting at the Fountains, residents also made note of the adverse conditions they encounter leaving their own facility both in their vehicles and as pedestrians. One gentleman said he is legally blind and walks with a cane and he was almost run over not too long ago and this information was provided to her last night. With the addition of a third entrance into the Fountains, a four-way stop was indicated at the intersection of Carlotta Drive and Sandcastle which is at the northeast sector. The Sheriffs Department and City were well aware of this problem and she hoped the commission's directive could provide immediate action on that matter as the four-way stop is long overdue. Any additions of personnel and residents would further compromise the traffic problems currently faced by all residents. Although Mr. Walker previously indicated that the proposed addition would have little impact and mentioned five or six employees per shift at last evening's meeting, Mr. Todd Pratt in stark contrast said 12. As mentioned on May 15 from her own experience in the medical field, she believed that even 12 additional employees per shift would be a low number and the supposed limited number of additional senior drivers will have an impact on their traffic flow. For the benefit of those not in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting of May 15, she wanted to address the proposed reconfiguration and limited access to their neighborhood off of Hovley due to the Indian Wells project developed by Sunrise Colony which borders Hovley on the south and calls for the widening of Hovley to four lanes. Currently traffic traveling east on Hovley could enter their neighborhood by turning left on Hemingway accessing homes on Hemingway, Dempsey, Marin Court and Freedom Court. Carlotta Drive was the only other entry to their neighborhood from Hovley Lane for residents of Carlotta, Easy Street, Dolmar Court, Duvall Court and Sandcastle. Residents leaving their neighborhood could exit Carlotta or Hemingway onto Hovley without restrictions currently. Under the new configuration of which few homeowners were aware, 12 w MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 access both entering and exiting their neighborhood would be significantly effected. With the new configuration if they were traveling east on Hovley, left turns onto Hemingway would no longer be permitted and all the streets would then enter their neighborhood off of Carlotta Drive. Leaving their neighborhood on the south to Hovley, right turns would only would be allowed at Hemingway and Carlotta. There would be no left-hand turns permitted. If their residents wished to travel east on Hovley Lane, they would be required to travel north on Carlotta, east on Sandcastle, south on Eldorado and finally east onto Hovley Lane. The new configuration for the Hovley Lane expansion combined with any additional traffic both chronic such as the new residents and employees of the Fountains and acute such as the construction workers for the next year once building begins. Both entry and exit would be a nightmare. Regardless of the final disposition of this project, she thought the City of Palm Desert should authorize a signal light to be erected at the intersection of Carlotta and Hovley prior to the beginning of construction at the Fountains, comparable to that of Hovley Lane and Fred Waring. She understood that a vehicle count was performed sometime ago to assess the need for a signal at that location and it was not deemed cost effective for the volume of traffic. The makeup of their segment of this community differed greatly from many neighborhoods with the mix of all ages and driving capabilities. Their neighborhood access was already deficient. With the new configuration of Hovley it would be further compromised. No one, especially the seniors, should have to feel intimidated if they attempt to compete with other drivers at precarious intersections. To limit all residents to one access to Hovley had not been very well received by parties on either side of this issue. Immediately following the Palm Desert Planning Commission meeting of May 15, she and others in attendance were approached outside the Council Chamber by Mr. Bob Walker and another gentleman. At that time she suggested that their management team look into acquiring a service road which appeared to be part of the Lakes Country Club Golf Course or redesign their master plan at the northeast corner where that previously mentioned abandoned cul-de-sac sits at the intersection of Carlotta Drive and Sandcastle where they would then be able to create a third entrance and she was pleased to see that they had. The northernmost entrance could be used for personnel, delivery "'"' 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 trucks and emergency vehicles as the nearest home to that location is at least 150 feet away and the few remaining influenced homes were even further, which was much greater than the ten feet that separate the southern homeowners adjacent to the south entrance which management appeared from the proposal to still designate as their service entry. Mr. Walker's response to her in the presence of others following the meeting on the 15th was that the Fountains' clients "paid good money to live there" and that the creation and designation of a north entrance as the primary service entry for the above-mentioned delivery vehicles would subject his clients to noise and disturb them. In reply she called to his attention the fact that the homeowners surrounding the Fountains have also invested heavily with their greatest financial investments likely to be their homes and that their mortgage obligations didn't permit many of them to just move away from an unpleasant situation with a 30-day notice. She found it regretful that Mr. Walker felt his tenants were entitled to peace and quiet that many homeowners were being denied even under the latest proposal. Following the commission meeting of May 15 she received an invitation for a meeting at the Fountains on the ' 23rd. Although Mr. Walker and other members of the management team who were present at the May 15 Planning Commission meeting, Todd Pratt, Management Director of the West Coast development of the Fountains, who was not available for the Planning Commission meeting was introduced and led the discussion with approximately 15 homeowners in attendance, most who had not attended the Planning Commission meeting either. At that time she again suggested creation of a north entrance. In addition it was discussed that the north access for personnel, delivering, and emergency vehicles would keep the least number of homeowners from being effected. It was also pointed out that the emergency vehicles could utilize the current north-south roadway that borders their current facility on the west. When the new phase is complete, this roadway would divide the two. She pointed out the location of the north-south entry way. She said that Mr. Pratt pointed out that through traffic would be eliminated to accommodate the link. In addition, he wanted to create this link so the ground would be terminated there. Mr. Pratt or another member of the management team in attendance indicated that the service road would surround the perimeter of the entire complex. Concerns were voiced that now all vehicles would be making this sweep which would 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 continue to be an irritant to not only the homeowners on the south which are the current ones under duress, but now those in the Mountain View Villa Condominiums on the west who would be on the opposite side of this perimeter road once the project is completed under the current plan. This link was discussed in management's discussion item on May 23 and again last night. While initially she'd only asked at the May 23 meeting that they eliminate the link and leave that north-south pass through intact so that the noise generated by service and emergency vehicles be confined as well as possible within their property in order to satisfy all parties. After further discussion last evening and understanding their clients needs to be able to travel between the units, she suggested an elevated or underground link be constructed over or under the existing roadway with access for their clients via elevators. She believed it was resident Dave who coordinates their earthquake preparedness or disaster plan who voiced concern over another problem in case of a disaster or power outage. Although the meeting last evening was initially led by Mr. Pratt, Ms. Ferguson took the helm. Ms. Webb didn't believe that the suggestion was to be given serious consideration due to cost. They also discussed the position of the fire truck when making evening and middle of the night calls. They were told that the fire truck would pull into what is now the employee service area. They were still proposing that the south entrance be used, the fire truck would go into the employee service area and that area would be kept clear of employee vehicles and a fire truck would be able to make the turn and there was an exit that would allow them to pick up any patients from the skilled nursing facility and then transport them out as opposed to having the holding area at the south which is what was currently going on. On the south of this small parking lot was the skilled nursing and the ambulance could pick them up there. She didn't know why they hadn't been doing this all these years since that was available to them. Discussion also ensued regarding the elevation of the two story assisted living wing which would be at the southwest corner. It would have the assisted living wing on the southwest with the Alzheimer unit on the southeast corner on the 6.6 acres yet to be developed. The new project and existing facility were divided by the north-south roadway. As pointed out on May 15, many residents on the south, primarily Marin Court, Freedom and Hemingway have incredible mountain views which would be %N" 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 compromised with the construction of a two-story unit going in on the southwest portion. She believed that there was a balloon analysis depicting the placement of the various units in contrast to the neighbors. She thought it was misleading since they depicted a scene from a good distance from what she believed it to be from homes that were ten feet from their south wall. The trees were supposedly those lining the adjacent block wall and the walls were six feet tall. Using that to estimate a 24-foot elevation, it would appear that a great error had occurred and that the roof should appear four times higher than the trees shown on the draft. With regard to the limited compromise offered on the entry/exit and the holding of emergency vehicles, it was apparent a way in which to easily remedy numerous points of significant contention would be to flip the plan north and south. In doing so the Alzheimer unit at the bottom and the two story unit which was obstructing views would be to the north with the casitas to the south. With her experience with skilled nursing and the Alzheimer's patients, there were times they could be extremely agitated, loud and disturbing to those around them, all the more reason to have their unit furthest from the homeowners who wish to enjoy the solitude of their homes. With the designation of the newly created north service entrance, emergency vehicles would have ready access to the patients. They were proposing that emergency vehicles, service vehicles and all employees would be utilizing the north entrance. If the north-south roadway were permitted to remain, they would come in and collect their patients. They wished to keep an existing central nursing center and she understood that so she wasn't as opposed to not flipping the plan and possibly compromising on the views because it was important to have all of the more critical need patients in one area. Any emergency vehicle needing to pick up a skilled nursing patient would still have to enter the south; if they were going to the Alzheimer unit it would go to the north. That didn't bode very well. What she would suggest was that all the service vehicles be required to enter from the north disturbing absolutely no one. The north-south route needed to be maintained and they were very adamant about their link and she understood that they needed access, but instead of it being an enclosed link, it could be an open link where there was secured ground and traffic was allowed to cross it with signal lights or whatever they needed to continue access. With , servicing vehicles coming in, they wouldn't be driving all around the 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 perimeter. By allowing them the southern access it was complicating things even further for the residents that live there. The applicant also wanted construction times. The residents were adamant that they didn't want construction in their area going on year round for as long as they live there. The nonprofit Good Samaritans was a good friend to their neighborhood for 14-15 years. The Fountains at the Carlotta is a for profit corporation. Instead of coming to them as the new kid on the block, they have attempted to market themselves as the same great guy who has been coexisting with them all these years and she found that action to be deceptive. She wondered what would go on after the fact. There were lots of conflicts in the information provided. One of the things noted in the paperwork reflecting Mr. Steve Smith's investigations for this project, numerous references were made comparing the Fountains with another similar facility, Hacienda de Monterey located on Monterey Avenue. It could not be lost on anyone making decisions on this matter that the Fountains was the only facility of this size that was nestled in a residential neighborhood. Hacienda de Monterey was bordered on the north, south and west by commercial businesses. Manor Care Rehabilitative Center and Rancho Mirage Health Care were located on Country Club, commercial zones. Eisenhower Memorial Hospital with all the recently popped up similar facilities were all on large areas that wouldn't conflict with any residential neighborhood. If the plan could not be flipped, and she understood the constraints there because of patient care, they would like to see new northern entrance be designated as the service entrance for personnel, delivery trucks and emergency vehicles with the same courtesy changes already submitted. They didn't want to have the southernmost gate used for personnel, delivery trucks or emergency vehicles. If they wished to leave the gates open during shift changes that was great. Elevate the link, eliminate it, or put it underground so that they could confine most of their traffic. In the commission resolution presented, on page four line 17 in reference to where they park these service vehicles, the last portion of the statement said as far away from the perimeter as is reasonable. She thought that could be wherever the applicant thought was reasonable. They wanted that section stricken from it. All deliveries should be made from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and the four-way stop and the installation of the signal light. She said they have a wonderful neighborhood, productive and %WW 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 i financially successful families that contribute daily to support the city and through the proactive approach and diligence Palm Desert was premier which was one of the reasons they purchased in the city and live, work and play here. Should the commission deem that this high density project should continue in its entirety, she asked the commission to protect the families who have invested heavily in this segment of the community by insisting on the revisions. Ms. Webb asked if the commission would like people who concur to come forward and give just their names and addresses for the record. Chairperson Lopez asked for people to raise their hands. Five people did so. MS. ROSALYN MONAHAN, 75-683 Duvall Court, stated that she lives directly across from the main gate. She was on vacation and missed the first meeting. She went to the meeting last night. She wasn't disagreeing with what her neighbor said. She heard all the arguments and thought that the south side people needed to stand firm to what they wanted, but she wasn't a south sider. She is a middle gate person and had some different concerns. She has lived in her house for over ten years. When she bought her house the Carlotta was there. She bought it knowing that the Carlotta was there and the Carlotta residents are wonderful and she said she doesn't have a people problem. She has a two-story house and her master bedroom has a balcony and her balcony has a view of the south Santa Rosas and the west to the parking lot at the Carlotta. She always thought it would be difficult to resell but as it is, maybe the next people would like it too and of course growth happens. Just prior to the Fountains actually coming on board, she spoke to a lady at the Good Samaritan. She said she would be willing to put her own family over there. But she didn't like the view of the parking. A lady told her that when the Fountains came, they were going to redo the facility, would redo the front and it would be beautiful. That came and that happened and the gate changed and the old gate was perfectly fine and she didn't have a problem with it but the parking lot was still there. Even the people who park in the parking lot didn't have any shade or covering - it is just a parking lot. Because her bedroom opens on that side, if they have the slider open during the nice weather, they get to hear the cars coming and going, they get to hear the car alarms, they get to hear the people whose cars won't start. They used to have the 911 calls 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 iWo come through the main gate with lights and sirens and that didn't happen anymore, but even that didn't bother her as much as looking at the parking lot. She informed commission that she's a social worker by trade, her sister is in a skilled nursing facility and she visits her frequently, she was not a foreigner to what goes on in nursing homes, she wasn't a foreigner to the comings and goings, she wasn't a foreigner to the people who scream and yell although that didn't bother her, the cars bother her. If the place was built correctly, perhaps there wouldn't be people noise and she thought that could happen. She said she would be a happy neighbor if they would do something with the current front parking lot, camouflage it a little better with some nice trees like at the Civic Center. She said she wasn't trusting the numbers that had been given on the number of people coming and going. She heard a count of the number of staff and typical residents. When a facility is built, they don't have *typical*. Whatever is typical today, five years from now it completely changes and they had to be realistic. If they build casitas for 55 year old folks, she was almost 55 and was pretty active. She was going to have a lot of friends coming and going unless they had an atypical 55- year old group. She was going to have family. She asked how many visitors they were going to have that they weren't counting. In these facilities they had paid staff and doctors on contract. She didn't know if there were labs on contract or x-rays on contract but she knew from visiting her sister that there are a lot of staff on contract coming and going that aren't part of the total head count. The Carlotta was wonderful to the neighborhood because they have community meetings. That also brought cars. When she comes home and sees the whole neighborhood has cars parked on the outside and the gate is open, there is something going on that is probably community friendly except they all brought their cars with them. To sum it up, she was concerned about the parking and what they were going to do for the current parking. Last night she heard the concern about the south side neighbors and what they were going to look at and how they were going to help it be visually aesthetic for the south side neighbors and what they are going to look at and how they are going to help it be visually aesthetic for the south side neighbors. She asked about the middle gate/east side neighbors. She would like some money to be spent and some consideration to the current existing parking. She didn't trust the numbers projected down the road for parking. If they ""' 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 ti run out of parking, they are going to park on the street. They already park on the street for open meetings. She said she has lived there ten years, almost 11, and wanted to know the projection for ten or 11 years. Alzheimer's patients that are in a facility like the Fountains, it costs a lot of money to put someone in a nice facility like the Carlotta. If they put someone in the Alzheimer's facility, they might not drive but they would have family coming to visit them, otherwise they would probably be in some facility for Medical. The same for the skilled nursing facility. If they put people in a facility of high class like the Carlotta, they were going to have family. These weren't abandoned people. She asked where all these cars would be. MR. JIM CAESAR addressed the commission on behalf of himself and his wife. He said they live next to the cul-de-sac on the north side by the proposed new gate. About three years ago he went to the City to ask about acquiring that cul-de-sac because they literally have no backyard for their children. So they got an approval and based on that he had some preliminary plans drawn to expand their home. He and his wife had some family matters come up on both ends of the family and didn't get a chance to proceed with their project, but they started the first phase which is doing some improvements to the interior of their home. But they just found out about this whole Carlotta incident today, otherwise he would have gone to the Planning Department to find out if that was going to stop them from proceeding with their plan of putting in their addition and acquiring the cul-de-sac. He believed there were access gates attached to the wall and wasn't sure if the gates were for the Fire Department, but they were access gates to the Lakes golf course. They were going all the way up to that area and the City said they had to allow an easement for fire trucks or whatever the Lakes needed there and they were going to use this dirt pie-shaped lot that belongs to the City to access into those gates. He didn't know if that was going to stop him from proceeding or what the story was there. The second issue was that they have three small children and they have had two close calls on the second gate, possibly the main gate, at the Carlotta. There was a partition between the outgoing and incoming traffic and it was a blind spot. When his son goes down the street on his bicycle, he couldn't see the cars coming out of the Carlotta and he had to fall off of his bicycle one time to avoid the outgoing traffic. Now he wasn't allowed to cross that 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 law intersection into the Carlotta. So he goes up there and then turns around and comes back. Now with the new gate they were worried about that especially because Sandcastle the other way is a raceway because both those projects were walled all the way down to Eldorado. He asked if it was going to be a problem for them to acquire that cul-de-sac. Chairperson Lopez asked if Mr. Drell was aware of this. Mr. Drell said he was unaware of any activity to acquire that cul-de-sac. They had always talked about the City taking over and landscaping that pie-shaped piece. He understood that it was a public street right now. Mr. Caesar said it was a parking lot for the three model homes. Mr. Drell said that if it was a dedicated public road, so they would have to go through a vacation process and he didn't believe Mr. Caesar had done that. Mr. Caesar said that the preliminary approval was based on the Lakes not having any objection to them acquiring the property. Mr. Drell asked if that area was now necessary for the functioning of that north gate and if it changed the usefulness of that cul-de-sac. Mr. Caesar said right now there wasn't any usefulness. Mr. Drell clarified that he was asking if that north gate would change it. Mr. Smith stated that it wouldn't impact on the proposed north gate and there was land still available. If they were to project the property line between the Lakes and the Fountains eastward, there was still a considerable distance north of that before getting to the cul-de-sac. Mr. Caesar said that if it was for fire trucks, they couldn't get through on this small entry. They would either have to put in an easement there or widen the entry. Their problem was if they would be able to go through this. Chairperson Lopez informed him that he would have to proceed with the submittal of his plans to the Planning Department. He noted that the %NW 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 a commission didn't have anything in front of them from him to review and wouldn't until he went through the appropriate process. Mr. Caesar said that more importantly was the safety of their children. The other incident was when the cars were backed up where they came north to turn left into the main entry and the cars were stacked up and his son was trying to go through the cars and there was a close call. Right now they didn't have a backyard. MR. HENRY BUCIER, 41940 Hemingway, said that he has been in Palm Desert 30 years and he had been in his house ten years. When he bought there, he was told the area was a water retention area for the Carlotta for drainage. His house was about four feet below the level of the Carlotta, so if they removed that area for water retention, they would have to drain that water somewhere and he asked where it was going. He knew that his front lawn had holes in it for water retention. He tried to fill them and was cited. The wall is 10 feet from his bedroom so if they started driving around it there would be a lot of noise. The applicants said there was no noise, but if they came to see him at 11:00 p.m., they were out there emptying the trash at 11:00 p.m. every night. The building was supposed to be two stories. He had his house changed and put in a window on the north side so he could overlook the whole area. He could see views of the mountains from his bedroom. Now the new building would be right in the middle of it. He wasn't saying they shouldn't do it, he was just concerned about them doing it right. MR. PAUL BEATY, 75-686 Dolmar Court, said that he is a mid gater. They exit the Carlotta right toward his backyard. He said he has lived there since his home was built 11 years ago and the Carlotta has been a wonderful neighbor. There were a few minor issues such as a problem with some lights shining in the back that was immediately corrected. Since they got to know Mr. Walker and his staff there were a couple of other lights which were shielded and he appreciated that very much. Before they modified the center gate, they did have some issues. He recognized that they were there before them and never complained about it, but they heard the intercom when people were trying to get someone's attention to gain access. That was no longer a problem since they changed the gate so he really had just a few 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 minor issues. He said he wasn't aware of the impact to the residents near the south gate. Now he was and now was an opportunity to fix that. Let the buyer beware didn't work with him. He did check when he purchased his home and the zoning at that time would not permit an expansion of this magnitude. It would certainly permit an addition staying within the zoning requirements. He thought that was one of his major issues. He talked with Mr. Walker yesterday and couldn't make the meeting last night since he was out of town, but the things he was verbally told and the things he saw in the staff report he liked; however, Mr. Walker told him they were going to have fire and emergency vehicles enter the north and he wasn't hearing that tonight. Mr. Walker said it was a viable option. Mr. Beaty said he had understood him to say that was where they would be required to enter and didn't know if that made a lot of sense. He thought it was the emergency vehicles that have caused the most problems. If they adhere to delivery vehicle times that would take care of the delivery vehicle problems and if they fixed the gate that had been a major issue. He said he was told that they were going to have a faster gate and he didn't see the emergency access or the landscaping of the cul-de-sacced property or these things as conditions. He saw them in the report though. He asked if the fact that they were in the report meant that they were stamped in concrete. Mr. Smith said that relative to the landscaping of the triangular area, it was a piece of property not on the site and they weren't in the position of imposing it as a condition if they worked out an agreement with the Public Works Department to do that. Mr. Beaty said that he was still concerned that there were so many conflicting statements and issues. He read in the minutes and also listened to the tape and it was stated at the last meeting that there would be 472 residents. Tonight they were hearing 349 or 379. He didn't know how many it would be. When he purchased his home, they couldn't add this many units because of the zoning and he would like to see the City make them adhere to that. r' 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 MS. SALLY MOSS, 41965 Freedom Court, stated that her concern had to do with the safety of the people walking along Carlotta, specifically the children. She walks her dogs every morning (and cleans up after them) along that way and there are a lot of children who walk there because of the school bus stop at the corner of Dempsey and Carlotta. She was concerned with the additional traffic, trucks and construction vehicles and they needed to be aware of this and it needed to be taken into consideration because kids were kids. Ms. Monahan readdressed the commission. She thought it looked like this matter was going to be continued. She said she works for the government so she knows that within the law the Fountains only had to give so much notice for the neighbors, but because of the magnitude of the changes being proposed and counter proposed, it would be a good will gesture from the Fountains to give notice to the neighbors again. She said she spoke to several neighbors who didn't have a clue about what was going on, maybe because they were too busy to read the notice, maybe because they were going on vacation, but she thought it would be a goodwill gesture to put this information back out to the neighbors and maybe more to the middle and the north side and let them have some say before there was some finalization. Chairperson Lopez asked if the applicant wished to readdress the commission. Mr. Pratt said that they submitted a letter to Mr. Gaugush offering to landscape the City-owned property at the corner. Their civil engineer designed the retention pond to remain as necessary on the property, it just got moved around, so retention would be adequately engineered. He said that when they looked at the view study they took special note of the views from the south side if they were standing on the south side property line where the single family homes were and looked northwest toward the mountains. The profile of the building did not impact the mountain profile to a point where arguably it would be a huge impact. They wanted to maintain their ability to try and help with the overall traffic impact in the neighborhood on Hovley and teenage speeders from the neighborhood that were driving down Carlotta. They would readily 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 r.. participate in fixing that if there was a way to do that. The truck traffic they had were several bread-sized trucks ranging from one to four deliveries per day for a total of 14 deliveries a week and then one semi that was a Sisco food truck. There would be between one and four trucks per day. Ms. Ferguson readdressed the commission. As it relates to the conversation about the connector piece between the two buildings, she wanted to give a little but more background on that design feature of this particular community. The main feature of that was to integrate the entire campus. There would be residents in the town center who have loved ones or friends who were moving to the assisted living portion of the building and this gave them an easy access to go visit them just as they could go visit them in the skilled nursing center any time they wanted under cover and out of the sun. She obviously wasn't 80 years old but worked with a lot of 80 year olds and they really didn't enjoy getting in and out of elevators and their ground floor apartments go first because everyone wanted to live where they didn't have to get into an elevator. As their residents suggested, an elevator was not necessarily the best solution for that. The other reason for that and the other reason they were trying to avoid having that opened up for deliveries was somewhat self-serving the same way it was self-serving to get folks off of Carlotta Drive. There would be a lot of resident walking pedestrian traffic and those trucks would be there and they wanted to protect their residents from potential traffic hazards in the community. Those were some of the other reasons behind that particular design feature. As it relates to the traffic on Carlotta Way, she wasn't saying that her residents were perfect, but she was guessing that they weren't speeding. She has kids, everyone she works with has kids and they obviously wanted to do what is right for the safety of those individuals and were willing to work to make sure the views corning out of their gates were appropriately placed so that the kids could see and their residents and visitors could see. As it relates to some of the misinformation that people kept talking about, there was a lot of terminology in their industry and if they didn't necessarily know the industry it could be misleading, so they did apologize if it had been misleading in any way, shape or form. To give them some numbers, they went through staff records for the third time today to make sure they had all their �" 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 i numbers correct. They basically have three shifts that work at the Carlotta. A 7:00 to 3:00 shift, a 3:00 to 7:00 shift, and a 7:00 to 11:00 shift. The existing number of employees that work on the 7:00 to 3:00 shift are 38, the existing number on the 3:00 to 7:00 shift are 22 and the existing number on the 7:00 to 11:00 are 8. Based upon adding staff to the community to accommodate the expansion, the 7:00 to 3:00 staff would have an additional 15, the 3:00 to 7:00 shift would have an additional 9 and the 7:00 to 11:00 shift would have 4, giving a total of 53, 31 and 12 respectively. In addition to that there are 12 management associates that don't necessarily come and go with shift changes that currently work there and eight management associates that would be added that wouldn't necessarily coordinate with the shift change, so that traffic depended on what shift they are working that day. As it relates to the number of residents living in their community, they have 111 independent living apartments, 22 assisted living apartments and 59 skilled nursing beds. They have approximately 33 of their independent living folks who have a double occupant, so it results in 144 people living in that building. Therefore there was a total of 225 people that currently live in the community. There were 32 new apartments assuming 50% of them are double occupied they increased that to 48 apartments. There were 52 assisted living apartments, 8 two-bedrooms and 60 beds on that one. The Alzheimer's has 21 beds and then the nursing home results in 81 beds. The grand total at the end of the day is 192 independent residents, 82 assisted living, 21 Alzheimer's and 81 skilled nursing residents. That resulted in 354 total residents on the site. That was information that they double checked and triple checked today and she was hoping they weren't being accused of providing misinformation. Those staffing numbers included everyone from a care giver to a housekeeper to a maintenance person to a food server to a cook and it included everyone. They did receive a report from the Captain of the Fire Department indicating the number of emergency vehicle visits to their community in 2000. There were 97 visits for the year, which was basically two visits per week and varying times depending on the need of the emergency and what it is. The Captain also stated that they were on track for the same type of traffic for the year 2001. Unfortunately they didn't keep records as to whether it was nursing home or independent living affiliated, but she could tell 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 them from experience that the majority of the visits were for the skilled nursing community. Chairperson Lopez said that he did listen today to the tape of the meeting and the number 472 did appear on the tape as well as in the minutes. He asked if that was an incorrect number. Ms. Ferguson said she wasn't at the meeting. Commissioner Finerty said that Mr. Roos was the one who quoted that number as noted in the May 15 minutes. Chairperson Lopez said he was just asking for a clarification -349 and 354 was close, but not 472. Mr. Smith explained that page five of the May 15 staff report had the number of persons based on the unit count. The Senior Overlay Ordinance was different based on the size of apartment units and the number of bedrooms. It assumed 1.75, 1.5 and 1.25 people. Going through the numbers staff had, staff came up with a count of 472 persons where the ordinance would permit up to 970 persons. Chairperson Lopez indicated that the project would be between 349 and 354. r.. Ms. Ferguson concurred and said that obviously that was based on assumptions of what they know about their population and the double occupancy that would occur in their community based upon what exists today. Chairperson Lopez asked if the current 225 residents was full capacity. Ms. Ferguson said yes, that was 100% occupancy. Commissioner Tschopp noted that someone brought up special events and asked how often they hold special events and exceed their onsite parking capacity. Ms. Ferguson said they hold a special event once a month. Commissioner Tschopp asked if that entailed parking outside the complex. Ms. Ferguson said yes. '" 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 5 Commissioner Tschopp asked if she knew how many cars were there parking outside the complex. Ms. Ferguson guessed maybe 20 cars. Mr. Walker spoke from the audience and said that some people park outside the complex only because it is more convenient. He thought there was adequate parking in most cases. Commissioner Tschopp asked if they were to start construction how they would handle the construction vehicles and workers and if they had a plan to get them onto the site. Mr. Pratt said that due to the sensitive nature of their campus in the residential context, they would require their general contractor to prepare a staging plan that would demonstrate how they would move materials onto the property and observe the construction hours so they weren't working at 5:00 a.m. and would make sure that somebody would be at a gate. If they picked a gate to route all construction through, they would have someone there managing that process so they didn't have a problem. Ms. Ferguson added that the surrounding homeowners would be very critical of them during their .r construction period. She said she also has 254 people living on her community's campus that would be in Mr. Walker's and Ms. Ship's office every single day if they weren't happy with the way the construction is managed and she could speak to that from experience at other communities. Commissioner Campbell said that she could see from their last meeting in May to the present time that the developer has tried to solve many of the issues that the residents have. Regarding delivery trucks, she thought that 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 was adequate and if they needed anything earlier for breakfast for the next day, they would have the delivery on the previous day to have those supplies on hand. As far as the fire trucks and ambulances having openers for the gate and the employees and the fire trucks and ambulances would enter from the south gate and go all around to the middle area and that entrance, but if that north gate was open, she said she could understand why it would be easier for them to enter at the north gate and do away with the covered walk and maybe in some way arrange it so that it could still be a covered area. She didn't know that older people had a 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 problem with elevators although she knew they have problems with escalators because even younger people have problems with escalators, but not with getting into elevators and going up or down. She thought it would be a good idea to have the fire trucks and delivery trucks enter through the north gate. Another problem with traffic on Hovley that Ms. Webb brought up had to do with the project on the south side of Hovley. Commissioner Campbell didn't think there was anything that could be done about that traffic on Hovley and it wasn't because of the Carlotta. Regarding the view on the two story buildings, there were two story apartments. The bedrooms were upstairs and they would be facing part of the two-story buildings and the casitas, so they would be similar in height and she didn't have an objection to them facing a two-story building opposite them. Regarding the delivery trucks, since there would only be one to four entering the south gate, she couldn't see why they couldn't enter through the north gate just like the emergency vehicles. For the landscaping of the cul-de-sac, she thought the City should be held responsible for the landscaping of that part of the area since it belongs to them. Commissioner Tschopp complimented the Carlotta. It seemed they have �.. made significant progress since the last meeting. It appeared that they were very willing to try and work with the neighborhood to become good neighbors and minimize the impact on the neighborhood which was unique because there were a lot of residences on all sides and cul-de-sacs backing up to the property. He thought they had made some good progress at this point to try and mitigate problems. Some of the things he'd still liked to see worked on was mitigation of some of the traffic through the neighborhoods. The way the gate entries were proposed was an improvement since the last meeting, but by limiting the different delivery, visitors, emergency vehicles and residents to certain gates and then not having through traffic in the compound, they still created an uneven load of traffic in certain areas using what were truly residential streets for the most part. He wanted to see them work with the residents a little more and the City a little more because he understood the limitation of the left and right-hand turns on Hovley and some of the other things that could create down the road even more traffic problems with the increase in traffic. On the internal roadway, he thought there might be a way for them to accommodate their visitors and guests inside and also get a little better traffic flow through the neighborhood by integrating it somehow into the complex. Some of the other things he thought were fairly minor. He wanted to see an agreement that they limit the `'� 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 number of people attending special events to the spaces available or perhaps in looking at the new plan that would accomplish that and keep people from wanting to park outside. They were dealing with residential type neighborhoods and he thought that would be appreciated by the neighbors. He thought they made significant progress and the neighbors for the most part had voiced some good ideas and he wanted to see them study it a little more and meet with them again to see if they could come up with a little bit closer agreement of what might work for everyone. Commissioner Finerty stated that she still had a number of concerns. It seemed they were trying to put too much and too many people in too small of an area and consequently the impact on the surrounding neighborhood was tremendous, especially on the south side. While it was true that the Carlotta was there first, this process requires a change of zone to build out to 100% occupancy and that is why there was a public hearing process for everyone to address these and while everyone bought their homes thinking the Carlotta would basically stay the current size and there was a level of comfort, but increasing it to the proposed size would increase the traffic, the residents, the comings and goings, the delivery times and she too felt that significant progress has been made but she wasn't prepared at this time to give any kind of approval and felt they needed to go back to the drawing board. Specifically on the impact on the south. She didn't understand why they wanted the residents to enter on the north when the residents of Palm Desert are being impacted on the south. It would seem to her that to accommodate the neighborhood character and wanting this expansion that they would be taking the concerns of the residents to the south and therefore require the emergency vehicles and delivery trucks to go in the north. She felt that needed a definite flip flop and deference needed to be made to residents who deal with this day in and day out because the residents of the Carlotta weren't really going to be impacted the way the residents in the City were going to be impacted with the noise, traffic and comings and goings because the people in the Carlotta are already there. She said she would not deviate on the delivery times. She thought 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. was sufficient. As Commissioner Campbell noted, they could just order things earlier and have them delivered sooner if that was an issue. She agreed with Commissioner Tschopp that there did need to be through traffic in the project. That was something else that needed to be worked on. With regard to the special events, she wanted to see that limited to the parking available in the Carlotta so that the residents of Palm Desert were not impacted. She 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 vow thought there was a lot more work to be done and wanted to see more neighborhood meetings. Her concern was that there would be a lot of people away right now and they were hearing that people still weren't aware of the proposed project despite the public notice. She would be in favor of a continuance at this point. Chairperson Lopez stated that in reviewing the information he has heard from the tape, in reviewing the minutes and from the additional testimony given, he thought there had been great progress and he commended everyone for taking to heart the comments of the residents. He thought they really were working toward a solution to these things and that they were on the right road and that the residents were of the opinion that they were on the right road. There were certain things that were out of their hands as it pertains to traffic on Hovley and those items which had been brought up before. There was growth in the community and there would be things that were going to change, more homes being built every day on all sides of where we live and people would be going back and forth between all the communities and it would impact the traffic. They would have to come up with the best plans they could and some of it would be for our own safety. Right turns in and out was a safety measure. Trying to get across two, three or four lanes in a high traffic area was dangerous. Those were things they would have to deal with as they go down the line, but he did think that as they enter into the Carlotta area there was no doubt that everything was right there. They were going down a road that wasn't a tremendously wide residential area although it was very quiet when he visited there three or four times to observe the area. He agreed that they were getting closer to a solution. He thought the solutions needed to include some of the safety things heard tonight. He was concerned about the area children and agreed with the gentleman who spoke that had children and he personally saw the blind spot on the main gate. Public Works might have to review this again because it was a situation where they might need some four-way stops and some slowing of traffic in that area if there was concern about the speed of the traffic through the community. He thought the parking seemed to be fine. There were some landscaping issues that needed to be looked at and some solutions. The point brought up about the landscaping and the parking area in the front was a very valid one because he noticed that immediately when he drove by there. There was a need to "soften" that area. He thought the holding of events within the community that creates an impact on the outside community and he could understand the reasons why because people are 4"v 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 used to going to those events and parking as close as they could get. Unfortunately as close as they could get was impacting the residents who live there. He thought that the applicant could have an impact on that. He did believe they were moving in the right direction and on behalf of the commission, he thanked everyone for taking the time to come to the meeting. He said the commission does take the information to heart and reviewed everything they could review to make the decision. This one would be difficult, but he thought they were getting closer to where they wanted to be. He asked if there was a motion. Commissioner Campbell asked if the curb could be painted red. Mr. Drell said if the neighborhood didn't need street parking there, it could be painted red. If no one needed to park there, he asked what the harm was in people parking there once a month. Roads were designed with width for parking. That was why they were 36 feet wide. Commissioner Campbell noted that some of the residents were complaining about the cars being parked there once a month. Mr. Drell said the road was designed with the assumption that cars would park there. If that parking on the street was interfering with the neighbors' ability to park there and was competing with it, there would be a problem if the curb was painted red because then no one could park there. If they wanted to have streets with no parking, they should design them 24 feet wide and then people would drive slower on them. That was something that could be discussed between the neighbors. The fact that there are cars parked on a public street which is designed for parking isn't necessarily a problem. If the goal is informing the guests coming to these events and alleviating that irritation that was something the management of these events could achieve if they inform people. Or temporarily during those times they could put up no parking signs and he didn't really know what that was going to achieve since no one during that period of time could park there. Commissioner Campbell suggested that when they do have these special events, they could have someone direct traffic inside. Mr. Drell said he wasn't sure how much of a problem it was and how much effort was worth going in to solve it compared to the other issues. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for continuance to July 17. Action: 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing this matter to July 17, 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. CUP 01-08 - VERIZON; 02 WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, Applicant (Continued from June 5, 2001) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 50-foot high wireless communication tower, camouflaged as a flagpole located at 74-535 Highway 74. Chairperson Lopez noted that there was a request for continuance. Mr. Drell advised that the public hearing still needed to be opened. Mr. Drell explained that the issue was referred to the Architectural Review Commission and they needed additional changes and it wasn't ready to come back yet. Chairperson Lopez indicated that the public hearing was open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was left open. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, to continue Case No. CUP 01-08 to July 17, 2001 by minute motion. C. Case No. DA 92-3 Preannexation Development Agreement - Noble & Company, Applicant Request for approval of a five-year time extension to the preannexation development agreement originally enacted pursuant to Ordinance No. 696, December 17, 1992. Mr. Smith explained that in the early 1990's the City was anxious to annex the area around Monterey and Dinah Shore, specifically the property at the northwest corner which was Price Club at that point and is currently Costco and the vacant land at the northeast and southeast corner of that intersection. The owners of the vacant land were concerned that certain entitlements which they had obtained through the County might not be �'"' 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 honored by the City if the area was annexed. Preannexation development agreements were negotiated with the various property owners. The development agreement was to commence on the date that the property was annexed to the city and continue for a period of ten years thereafter. The annexation occurred on December 17, 1992. The applicant was requesting a five-year time extension. The development agreement grants the property owners the ability to use County development criteria including density and intensity of use, maximum height and size of buildings, setbacks, parking requirements and other issues contained in the development criteria. The agreement also fixed zoning and land use designations as prescribed and went so far as to state that the properties weren't subject to ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or policies in effect at the time of development. When the agreement was negotiated, it made sense for both parties in that some of the property owners had completed processing by the County and they wanted assurance that the time and money spent on those applications would not be rejected by the City and from the City perspective the County approved plans were generally within the scope of the City's General Plan: Regional Commercial and Service Industrial uses. The City is not obligated to grant any extension. Mr. Smith explained that the agreement did not mention extensions. Over the past eight and a half years the City has changed many of its development standards, parking, parking lot layout, landscaping standards, landscaping design criteria, setback requirements and others. The City is currently undergoing a General Plan update which is studying very closely the remaining large vacant parcels of land. Staffs position is that the City should not further limit its ability to plan these areas. The City committed to honor the County approvals on these properties for ten years and staff saw no reason to extend the agreement beyond the original ten-year term. Subsequent to the packets being delivered, staff received a letter from Mr. Noble which was faxed to commission. It outlined his reasons for the requested time extension of the term. Mr. Smith stated that the staff recommendation was that Planning Commission not approve the requested time extension. Commissioner Campbell asked why the request was for five years instead of one year. Mr. Smith deferred the question to the applicant. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 `W MR. TOM NOBLE, 19 Merle Drive in Palm Desert, asked if anyone received his letter. Commission concurred. Mr. Noble said his concern wasn't with anything other than the land use issues. He thought the planning staff would attest to the fact that there were a number of these pieces of property that were under contract and they referred everyone to the City to get the city standards. He had them also. He said he didn't even know what the County standards were ten years ago and wouldn't dream of trying to impose those here. Their concern was just the opposite. They wanted to make sure they have a very high quality development. It is a fabulous location. The property is 170 acres at the intersection of Dinah Shore Drive and Monterey Avenue. They have Home Depot across Monterey from them and a triangular shaped piece of property owned by the County. Where Dinah Shore will extend to Portola Avenue, they own along the railroad tracks for about a half mile. It was property in that area which has always been Service Industrial zoned. That was how they planned their development. The other property fronting on Monterey Avenue is about 70 acres of commercial which they are working on with Bill Carver who has done a number of developments locally. He was going to have a beautiful plan for a commercial development here. His concern is that they don't want to get into a situation where people are coming in who have a vested right to Service Industrial use on their property that is currently zoned Service Industrial and then all of a sudden have a change or a moratorium or a study period and have nine contiguous pieces being put into use for the Service Industrial usage, have intervening parcels that might be caught up in some time warp where they would be uncertain they would be able to use it for the same purpose. There might be some middle ground where they needed to accomplish what they needed to do and still allay any concern staff might have with them trying to have more density or an improper parking layout. Again, they were imposing very stringent requirements as far as the architecture. They had already taken one project through the Architectural Review Committee and everything in the development would go through Architectural Review and full review by the City. He didn't think there was any question about the ''*IMP 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 3 development standards, it was purely land use and that was the issue with them. Commissioner Campbell asked why they were requesting a five-year time extension instead of just a year if everything is so close. They've had eight and a half years. Mr. Noble said he didn't really think five years was necessary. It was a number he and his partners discussed including whether they should discuss another entire ten-year period and five years was sure to cover whatever might have to happen. They would have virtually everything in the planning process by mid 2004. A two-year extension would probably also be fine. Mr. Drell stated that every property in the whole city would like absolute forever certainty as to their zoning but they didn't have it. They had the ability in the city to review land use over time and if the City felt it is in the best interest of the city to change it, we have that ability. This property benefited from ten years of protection which most of the city doesn't have. Historically the City hasn't changed land uses. He couldn't conceive after going through a General Plan if there was a broad community consensus that there should be a change, and that's the very change that Mr. Noble is worried about, we asked why, while going through the process, we would act to prevent ourselves from making a change. There wasn't anything unique about this property that deserved any more protection than any other property in the city. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that under the development agreement, it would still be on the County criteria and this was why they wanted an extension. If they have some of the project before Architectural Review and actually would go through the City's development standards, she asked why they needed an extension of the development agreement if they are going to use all the City's criteria. Mr. Noble said it was solely because of the land use issues. To respond to Mr. Drell, he thought the distinction here might be the size of the project. It is a large project, there are a lot of parcels involved and it was very different from subdividing ten or 20 acres. They were spread out over a long expanse. The property is a half mile in length 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 or more on each side. They were in the process of adding in the Fortner property to the east of them which would make the property run from Monterey to Portola. His concern would be to have intervening uses to the uses they were planning now. As a practical matter, the only other use that could be considered there was residential and he didn't think this property was fit for residential. They were up along the railroad tracks and it didn't seem to make sense. Mr. Drell said that was for the process to determine. Chairperson Lopez noted that the current General Plan shows this area as Service Industrial. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Chairperson Lopez asked if the land uses would remain Service Industrial. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Tschopp asked how the development agreement would work if a project was under development at the time it expired. Mr. Drell explained as an example that the way a precise plan worked was while the precise plan is in effect, once it's approved, unless a specific ordinance change states a change applies to all previously approved but not constructed projects, otherwise once someone got a precise plan approved they had a vested right in that use for as long as that approval is alive. Obviously people have to come back for extensions every year and the City could always not extend them. Once they are actually under construction and they pull building permits, they have a vested right in their project and they were pretty safe. Through the history of 25 years they have never had that issue ever come up in the city where they've changed development standards or zoning in such a way as to preclude an already approved project. But again, if after a broad community consensus says that a portion of Mr. Noble's property should be something else, that's what General Plan Amendments were all about. Reexamining land uses and changing it. All the properties in that area are big properties. That's what provides the opportunity to do something different. Because there was an opportunity to do something different,to say that they should prevent that from happening by virtue of this approval didn't make sense in his view. He said he understood Mr. Noble's desire to provide absolute certainty and cast his zoning in stone, but if they did that for all similar property there would be no point in them going through a General Plan amendment. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Noble were to try and sell portions of this to others or develop portions, if those people would be free to come to `'�' 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 the City and at that point in time go through a process that would have some certainty that what they were doing would not expire at midnight on December 17. Mr. Drell said that all that expires is the absolute certainty of that zoning. The zoning didn't change when the development agreement expires. The zoning and General Plan as it is now constituted would stay the same. What would change is if in going through the General Plan process it is determined that a portion of his property should be somewhat different. Mr. Drell pointed out that he's protected from that change for the next year and a half as it is effective to December 2002. Mr. Noble said for the record that was the date Mr. Smith indicated and he wasn't sure he agreed with that. He thought it was actually the date the agreement was recorded. It would be the later of the two but that was something they could hammer out later. He wasn't involved at that time, but it was actually signed and recorded after the annexation had taken effect. He thought it was March of the next year. Mr. Drell said that they may have two more years, but the same argument applies. Mr. Noble informed commission that in the staff report there was an indication that the City is required to help them extend Dinah Shore and that wasn't his interpretation. His reading of the development agreement and conditions of approval is that they have to do all the Dinah Shore improvements through their property. Additionally, they have to run the pavement of Dinah Shore to an extension of Portola Avenue wherever the City decides to put it. He has had a number of meetings with Joe Gaugush of Public Works on that issue to try and determine the best layout of it. Instead of the City having to go to any expense or help them acquire any land, the opposite is true. He had to extend Dinah Shore past their boundary to an extension of Portola. That would expire with the development agreement also. Mr. Drell said he understood that the City would have to extend Portola. Right now Portola didn't extend past Gerald Ford and the City would have to extend it up to the point determined where Dinah Shore would intersect it. a 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 Mr. Noble stated that didn't involve any property they have interest in and that was something the City wanted to do to make that connection, which would be very helpful for everyone to be able to go from Portola to Dinah Shore to the interchange. Mr. Smith noted that Section 431 page 11 of the agreement referring to Dinah Shore said that if said Henry Melby is unable to purchase such right- of-way from Monterey Palms, City shall cooperate by acquiring such right-of- way under the power of eminent domain. Mr. Noble said that wasn't property they currently have. Mr. Smith pointed out that it is part of the agreement. Mr. Noble agreed that was correct, but there were other properties in the agreement that were a part of that and were completely distinct from theirs also. Commissioner Campbell asked if the date was correct on Ordinance No. 696 to. of December 17, 1992 and expires in 2002. Mr. Smith said that at the time he thought the agreement was approved by ordinance which was on December 17. They didn't anticipate that the agreement would take so long and the annexation ended up being approved in October by LAFCO and ended up recording on the 21 st or 22nd of December. He thought that was the appropriate date - the actual annexation occurring on December 21 or 22, 1992. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty stated that she concurred with staffs recommendation and would move for adoption of the resolution of denial. She felt ten years was ample time. Commissioner Campbell concurred. The agreement is for ten years and they have enough time to proceed. She wasn't in favor of extending it another five years. She seconded the motion. `�' 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 Commissioner Tschopp noted that it didn't really matter who benefited from the extension. The paramount issue was that it was just an interim agreement to buffer the impact of annexation and ten years was more than adequate time to allow a land owner, subsequent owners or so forth to move forward if they had plans. The buffer period of ten years was long enough and he felt it was time to move forward. Chairperson Lopez agreed. He also thought that ten years was ample time for the development of this particular property. He wasn't sure that the land issue was paramount although it did give flexibility to make requests. What was more important was that it also put into effect a lot of the changes the City has done over the years through different ordinances that we have adopted. That is a main thoroughfare into our city and should be something we can be proud of it. Chairperson Lopez called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2077, denying a five-year time extension for Case No. DA 92-3, a preannexation development agreement. Motion carried 4-0. D. Case No. CUP 01-10 -DAVID LEONARD ASSOCIATES for SPRINT PCS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 65-foot high wireless communication tower camouflaged as an artificial date palm tree located at 75-050 Merle Drive. Mr. Alvarez stated that there was a request of what was to a certain extent a co-location of a mono palm located at the northeast corner of Merle Drive and Cook Street. There was currently an installation there of a 60-foot high mono palm camouflaged as an artificial palm tree with two live date palms associated with the project, one at 40 and one at 50. This request is to co- locate a second carrier in the form of a second artificial mono palm or date 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 palm with a height of 65 feet in essence in the same location within this strip located to the north of the existing storage units. The commission had some photo simulations which were an indication of what they could expect to see when it was installed. An additional live date palm would be added to the west side to complete the grove. There would be two artificial date palms and three live date palms. In terms of ordinance requirements, Mr. Alvarez stated that those were outlined in the staff report and all of the ordinance requirements could be met. Separation requirements which are required for communication towers could be waived when there are stealth installations. Staff believed that the findings for the exception of the separation requirement could be made. The Architectural Review Committee reviewed this project on May 8 and voted to approve the project with the stipulation that the data dish mounted communication equipment be removed from the project. Mr. Alvarez stated that was added as a condition in the resolution. He indicated the project is consistent with the ordinance requirements and is compatible with this area. This is a Service Industrial district and the artificial palm tree and the new live palm tree would be compatible in this location. For purposes of CEQA, this project is a Class 3 categorical exemption with no further documentation necessary. Staff recommended i... adoption of the resolution approving CUP 01-10, subject to the attached conditions. Commissioner Finerty asked where the requirement was located in the conditions of approval that the dish would be removed per ARC's recommendation. Mr. Alvarez didn't see it and recommended that the commission add it as condition number ten and it would state that all data dish communication antennas and equipment be removed from the tower. Commissioner Campbell asked if the other palm tree had the data dish on it now. Mr. Alvarez said no and confirmed that it had never had one. He said they were proposing to put one there as part of this application, but staff is requiring that they remove it. Chairperson Lopez asked for confirmation that the proposed palm is a rounded trunk and the existing trunk is triangular. Mr. Alvarez concurred. Chairperson Lopez noted that they were only proposing one additional tree. He asked if that was sufficient. Mr. Alvarez said yes. They did have some other palm trees on Cook Street on the Berger Foundation site and some r... 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 s smaller ones when continuing north on Cook Street that the City has installed. He said that could be seen in the photo simulations. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that there have been a number of these applications lately and asked if there was any idea of how many the City could end up within the city. Mr. Alvarez said that staff could contact some of the carriers to get an idea of where they are considering putting them and come up with a rough idea of where they might end up. It was a matter of coverage which different carriers need with varying heights and frequency. Commissioner Campbell asked when they would draw the line. Mr. Drell said there wasn't a line to be drawn. Pursuant to the Federal Communications Act that deregulated this industry, everyone who buys the frequency and has the ability to do business, we have to allow them to do business. They could change the designs and disguise them, but the City couldn't tell them they couldn't provide service. Commissioner Campbell said that after a lot of palm trees they might have to think about a different design. Mr. Drell thought that at some time in the future there might be new technology. One reason they are seeing more is because the new digital technology doesn't have the range of the old analog system, although it provided a stronger, clearer signal. They also need more of them than before to provide the same level of service. That was anticipated in the law. Commissioner Finerty said that she thought she heard on the radio that the City of Rancho Mirage had voted not to allow the wireless communication towers so when staff was putting together the estimated number of towers, she asked if staff would check to see if that was accurate. If it is, it could impact that side of Palm Desert more. Mr. Drell said he would find out, but it was his understanding was that they couldn't. Commissioner Finerty believed it was in the last four to six weeks at a City Council meeting. Mr. Drell said that if their residents are denied services, they might react negatively at the next election. Mr. Alvarez said that he has heard of some denials, but wasn't aware of an out right prohibition. He pointed out that the Planning Commission had the discretion of where they go, what they look like and their height. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 ... MR. TRIP HOARD with David Leonard Associates located at 5029 Lemont Drive in Riverside, stated that he was present to ask for the commission's support of the staff recommendation. They approved the conditions of approval and concurred with the addition of the deletion of the additional dish. He asked that condition of approval number four regarding the Architectural Review Commission requirement be deleted as the commission has acted and recommended approval of this project. Mr. Alvarez said that if the commission wished, the condition could be modified to state that the applicant would come back with working drawings to staff and staff would review them at that point. Typically what happened was staff received final working drawings and staff reviewed them before taking them back before ARC for their final approval. Mr. Drell stated that he could see no reason to make an exception for this project. It was a standard condition and since they already received approval there was no hazard or fear that they couldn't get final approval. Mr. Board said he wasn't familiar with this procedure and thought it r.. was a step which had already been taken. If it was protocol to go back to the commission with building plans, they would want to comply with that. Chairperson Lopez noted that technology wise, the Planning Commission has had a couple of proposals before them with a dish added to the tree which they had denied. He asked if there was a tremendous need for this and if it was going to be the next step or if it was a solution to a problem from a technology standpoint. Mr. Board stated that when they approached Sprint with the requirement that the Architectural Review Commission was asking to delete that, they just shrugged their shoulders and acted like it wasn't any big deal to their future plans for the site. He wasn't in the technology end of it, but his impression was that it was not going to be of real value to them. 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. 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2078, approving Case No. CUP 01-10, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. E. Case No. CUP 96-4 - FEDDERLY AND ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval to renew Conditional Use Permit 96-4 which allowed the conversion of a motel into an office use for property located at the northeast corner of San Luis Rey and Shadow Mountain Drive. Mr. Alvarez noted that this project located at the northeast comer of Shadow Mountain and San Luis Rey was approved in March of 1996 as a conditional use permit and precise plan. Specifically the conditional use permit required the applicant to enter into an agreement with the adjacent property to the east which is Union Bank for the use of 12 parking spaces to compensate for their lack of onsite parking spaces located on Larrea Street. When the project located on Larrea Street, an apartment building proposed by Fedderly & Associates was before the commission, issues were raised about the existing CUP and the operation of this property. Commission subsequently requested that staff look into these issues and report back. Upon further investigation, staff found that the conditional use permit required a three-year annual review and that renewal had not occurred. Staff worked with the neighborhood and the applicant and scheduled this for public hearing to try and address the issues that were raised. The pertinent issues and conditions were outlined in the staff report. Those items included condition number eight of Resolution No. 1725 that the applicant obtain a long term lease for use of at least 12 parking spaces from Union Bank in the location of the site to the satisfaction of the City. Said lease to be for a period not less than ten years renewable and non-cancelable. Evidence of compliance of this lease agreement requirement to be filed with the City annually. Staff looked into the file and had no capability of keeping track of it. Staff met with the applicant and he provided staff with a lease agreement with Union Bank for a period of three years. Staff again mentioned that it should be for a ten- 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 year period and the applicant is currently working on acquiring that ten-year agreement. The applicant didn't believe it would be a problem and was just a matter of rearranging the agreement. Condition number 12 said that the applicant shall participate in the El Paseo Assessment District if the property is within the geographic boundary of that district. Staff looked into the matter and the property does not fall into that assessment district and no further action was necessary on that item. Condition number 13 required the case to be reviewed every year. That didn't happen but staff believes a solution to that problem was found. Staff would be inputting this condition into the business license data base. Upon renewal of the business license for this property in the year 2004, the applicant shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the conditional use permit. Regarding neighborhood concerns, staff was obviously made aware of some concerns by an adjacent property letter in a letter received on April 16 from Mr. Chandler. Issues raised regarding the conditional use permit operation included parking, large delivery trucks, noise, trash and staff believed that working with Mr. Chandler and the applicant staff has come up with adequate conditions which would alleviate these issues. In terms of parking, one requirement was that the applicant specify to his employees that the 12 parking spaces located at Union Bank be used by the employees. This would free up some spaces on Larrea for their customers. Staff subsequently revised condition number eight. In terms of large delivery trucks, the Code Enforcement Department investigated the issue and the day they were out there they did see an 18- wheeler truck so they notified the applicant/property owner and staff added a condition that no large 18 wheeled trucks would be used for deliveries to this site. They would be limited to standard delivery trucks like UPS sized vehicles. In terms of noise, Mr. Chandler was concerned about gardeners performing property maintenance on the site and with potential noise that may occur on the new construction at Mr. Fedderly's apartment project located to the east. The regulations for property maintenance were outlined in the staff report. Those hours were specified on page four. Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Sunday 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and government code holidays not allowed. Staff would continue to work with the applicant and the Code Department to monitor this situation. If a problem persists, staff would take action and potentially reevaluate the conditional use permit and it could potentially be subject to suspension or revocation. In terms of trash, this issue was raised in the letter regarding packaging material blowing from the business onto the adjacent properties and in their pools. Again, staff was just made aware of '"� 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 these issues via Mr. Chandler's letter and was appreciated. Staff would continue to monitor it as well as Code Enforcement and report back. With the proposed conditions in the draft resolution, staff recommended that the commission reaffirm approval of the conditional use permit subject to conditions as modified. Commissioner Campbell wondered what an 18-wheel delivery truck would be delivering to an office complex. Mr. Alvarez said that was a good question and deferred it to the applicant. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MIKE FEDDERLY, 73-297 Grapevine Avenue, stated that he thought there were a lot less deliveries now. There were some deliveries of big art pieces. They have a gallery there. There were some big palettes delivered and it was an ongoing process of picking up parcels and UPS does a lot but there were some semis or larger trucks that come by there. Now it was going to be processed down the street and in about six months they would be in a different location. He hoped that would mitigate this problem. They had talked with Mr. Chandler across the street and had come to some agreements. They would try to be good neighbors and he believed they have lived within the conditions. They would try to not have the large trucks come by. Commissioner Campbell said that she only looked at his building from San Luis Rey across from the bank and she thought it was impeccable and the artwork is wonderful. Mr. Fedderly thanked Commissioner Campbell. Chairperson Lopez noted that one stipulation on the conditions was that the applicant recontract with Union Bank the parking spaces for the employees. There was also an indication that there was a need to mark spaces and used for Fedderly & Associates. He asked if the applicant thought that was something that Union Bank would allow. 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 ` Mr. Fedderly didn't know, but didn't think so. As long as they have their lease and comply, he didn't see where that was an issue. Mr. Drell didn't think they needed to be marked. It would mess up the efficiency of that lot. Chairperson Lopez asked if there would be any problem with having Mr. Fedderly's employees park there. Mr. Feddedy said he had no problem and he and his staff were working hard to take care of the parking issues. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. LAWRENCE CHANDLER, at 73-771 Larrea right across the street, noted that on the notice it said San Luis Rey and Shadow Mountain. He said it was San Luis Rey and Larrea Street. Mr. Chandler stated that Mr. Alvarez had gone beyond the call of duty to help them with this problem and his assistant and it was really appreciated. He called to keep them apprised and made everything ... comfortable. They had a meeting over the parking. It's been three years and even today no employees parked at the bank. Not one. Without marking those spaces, no one is using them. He was telling them what he sees. There was an 18 wheeler there. It wasn't the first time and there has been three since. Six months down the road he said they would have less. That was fine and they could live with it. It was progress. The City spent a fortune redoing the street two years ago and they should look at it. It is a slurry street and was nice and smooth and he had never seen a job done so quickly. They should see the ruts in the road now. It would have to be redone. With the construction next door it would have to be redone. He didn't have a problem and he agreed that the building is beautiful. Compared to what it was three years ago it is a palace and the artwork is gorgeous. He didn't have an objection to the business or the way it's being run, just to the impact it has had on them. They were still very concerned with the project going in next door because of what they have had for the last three years. He came down to the office and looked really closely at it. He said it is a beautiful project. The commission approved it as they should have. It would be a great thing for the community but at the same time he didn't want to suffer through two 'r 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 years of noise, dirt, etc. They would like to see it started and finished at an appropriate time. The last project dragged on close to two years. He didn't have any objection to renewing the conditional use permit. He said they were doing more than he expected and he thanked them and particularly thanked Mr. Alvarez and his assistant who he thought gave up her lunch hour to show him plans. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty indicated that all the issues had been dealt with and she appreciated the cooperation on everyone's part. She moved to reaffirm approval of the CUP. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. She requested that Mr. Fedderly look into Mr. Chandler's concern to make sure that Mr. Fedderly's employees park in the Union Bank parking lot. Commissioner Tschopp concurred that it looked like the concerns had been addressed. Chairperson Lopez also concurred and called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2079, reaffirming approval of CUP 96-4, subject to conditions as modified. Motion carried 4-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) i 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (June 19, 2001) Commissioner Finerty stated that it was informational. F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (June 18, 2001) Commissioner Finerty indicated this meeting was informational. G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) X1. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned m 0 PHILIP DRE , Secretary ATTEST: Q�� JI , C onin son P m esert Plaon /t 49