Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0717 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - JULY 17, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chairperson Cindy Finerty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell 1r Sabby Jonathan Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the June 19, 2001 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Lopez, approving the June 19, 2001 minutes. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 's V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized the pertinent June 21 , 2001 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. BRIAN HARNICK of Roemer, Harnick and Nethery at 45-025 Manitou Drive in Indian Wells, stated that he was present on behalf of American Realty Trust Inc. They had an item on the agenda, Miscellaneous Item A, which was a request to extend a tentative tract map for one year. Earlier today they withdrew that request in writing and suggested that rather than waiting until the end of the agenda, he wanted to raise the issue now to be assured that their withdrawal was accepted at this point and that there would be no further action at this time. Chairperson Lopez concurred that there was a letter before the commission withdrawing the item. Mr. Drell explained there was really no necessary action required by the commission. Chairperson Lopez acknowledged acceptance of the letter. a� Mr. Harnick informed commission that he has been working with Mr. Drell and City staff to address some issues and thanked the commission. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this required a minute motion. Mr. Drell said no, that by withdrawing the application there was no action required. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 01-06, 07 and 08 - MAMMOTH EQUITIES, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Parcel Map Waiver 97-12 for property located at the southeast corner of Country Club Drive and Harris Lane. k i 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 UAW B. Case No. PMW 01-24 - WORLD DEVELOPMENT, SCHMID INVESTMENTS AND JACQUES DEBONNE, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to move a lot line between two office professional lots, parcels 14 and 15 of PM 28596, located on Village Court. C. Case No. PMW 01-19 - HOWARD HAIT, FRED AND ELIZABETH PIZZUTO, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to move a lot line between an office professional lot fronting on Monterey Avenue and a single family residential lot fronting on San Antonio Circle. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vlll. 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 and June 19, 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 .... 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 the west side of Carlotta Drive, north of Hovley Lane, 41- 505 Carlotta Drive. Mr. Smith explained staff's position. He said that staff could support 77 units under the current zoning. If the commission was inclined to look at the 82 unit proposal which is what was before the commission this evening, the suggested route would be a zone change amendment to increase the density from 10 units to 11 units per acre. Commissioner Finerty noted that on the information sheet Mr. Smith distributed, it said that the change of zone from PR-1 O to PR-1 1 would allow 84 units and the current request had 82 units. She asked for clarification that the applicant only wanted to add 82 but the zone would allow up to 84. Mr. Smith deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was an existing PR-11 zoning. Mr. Smith said existing zones included PR-17.5, PR-22, and PR-9. It was a very flexible zone. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they had the ability to recommend a PR-1 1 zone even though it wasn't specifically on the books. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mr. Drell said it was on the books. The PR zone allowed densities from one to 18. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the original application contained a Senior Overlay zone and as a result there were certain concessions, a development agreement, mitigations and cost offsets. He asked what they might be losing in terms of benefits for seniors. Mr. Smith indicated that the previous proposals were requesting significantly more units. In order to support that type of proposal, they were looking for mitigation fees to go into the housing program. If they were to take the 77 units, they would be right on the current zoning. Since they were looking at perhaps five additional units, he wasn't sure a mitigation fee would apply in such a minor manner. If the commission wished, staff could insert the additional five units into the formula used in the original development agreement and come up with a mitigation fee for that amount of extra units. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that what the City gained under the original proposal was a fee, not senior housing subsidies or new units for seniors that would not otherwise exist and don't now. So what the City was losing was additional mitigation fees. Mr. Smith informed commission that the fees totaled $127,000. Commissioner Jonathan 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 noted that the fee wouldn't be required if they went with the lower density of 77 units. Chairperson Lopez noted that the public hearing was still open and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. JULIE FERGUSON, 2020 W. Rudisill in Tucson Arizona, addressed the commission. She indicated that the Fountains had spent the last 30 days working on several of the issues brought before them by their neighbors. After much review, design analysis, and consideration of all of the list of items that they were trying to fit into their project, what the commission saw in front of them was the result of all those conversations and efforts. As they became aware half way through the process, there were some additional concerns raised about the north gate that came in the form of a petition. The Fountains development got caught in the middle of their southern neighbors, their northern neighbors and their neighbors living across the street from them. They tried to make everyone happy, but they had constraints on what they could or could not do. What she thought they came up with was a response that met many of those items as well as some of the concerns as they relate to the absolute maximum density that the Fountains at the Carlotta could have. That was specifically outlined in the requested change. They went from having a request for 105 units to 82 new units on this campus which reduced the density by 22. She noted that the 22 units being deleted were from the conversion of the piece which was going to be converted from assisted living to skilled nursing and it was now being converted into Alzheimer care. Three sections would all be assisted living. What was notable about that was the skilled nursing portion of their business was the most service intensive, the most emergency vehicle intensive portion of their business, staff intensive, etc., so it reduced a lot of issues raised at the last meeting relating to ambulance traffic and staffing traffic because it was one of the highest intensity uses on their project. Relating to the change to the PR-10 zoning, she thought that Mr. Smith hit all the key points as to what they were hoping to achieve. Regarding Commissioner Finerty's question about the 84 units versus the 82, the change of zone would allow 84, but based on ... 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 } their current plan they were looking at 82 in their current architectural plan. The request and change Mr. Smith alluded to was only an increase of seven units over what the existing zoning would allow which was a 6% change to what they were allowed to do. She noted that 50 of the 82 units would be assisted living apartments and as discussed in prior meetings, the assisted living portion of their project is a lower intensity use than their independent living because their assisted living residents typically don't drive. That was a less intense use for in and out residential traffic being created. The other items discussed with Mr. Smith today dealt with the gates. The north gate they just wanted to use for residential traffic. That would alleviate the build up of traffic on Carlotta Drive at the front gate and the south gate would still be used for deliveries and keeping the delivery trucks and emergency vehicles at the south end of the property. On the handout, she said they also briefly reiterated some of the items they discussed with some of their neighbors and items they put into action, some of them today, in order to make the Carlotta more neighbor friendly based on some of the requests and concerns of some of their neighbors that had been expressed to them as well as some of the redesign items they had done to their r► project to make it more neighbor friendly and to coexist in the residential environment. The other pages of the handout outlined their requested changes to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Campbell asked about the parking lot at the main entrance and about additional landscaping. Ms. Ferguson said that additional landscaping was something they looked at in concept but she didn't spend any money to have a landscape architect design a new entry or put trees on the plan because that would just cost more money for something they were unsure of. She said she would entertain that and look at it as part of this project. It was a great opportunity for them to do that. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification. They are currently allowed 77 units and they plan to go to 82, an addition of five. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 `" Ms. Ferguson said that was correct, but the zoning change would allow up to seven. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR of the proposal. MR. HUBERT SCOTT, President of the Carlotta Resident Council, stated that he has lived at the Carlotta for 12 years. He has seen all of the adjoining residential communities built and he thought sometimes it was a shame to have their views cluttered. He said he is 93 years old and he mentioned that only as a testimonial to the virtues of living at the Carlotta. He introduced Dr. Harold Schoenfeld, the Chairman of the ad hoc committee who was assigned the responsibility of preparing the letter that went to the commission. DO. HAROLD SCHOENFELD stated that they appreciated the opportunity of having the commission consider their rebuttal to the arguments proposed by the opponents. Their letter addressed that fact and he said he wouldn't read the entire letter, but would jump �. to the conclusions and summary. Their neighbors who were opposing these plans were requesting the commission to solve certain grievances including reversing the submitted layout of the campus, eliminating the covered walkway, and transferring the emergency and service entrance to the newly proposed north gate which some of them were opposing, although they purchased their homes several years after the Fountains began using the south gate. He showed them pictures of the south gate which was built in 1989. The Carlotta was originally built in 1986 and the neighboring homes to the south and east were built in 1991-92. The Fountains management addressed and corrected most grievances, but they couldn't in good conscience for safety, environmental and efficiency reasons accept any reversal of the facility layout, the elimination of the walkway, or the entry traffic rearrangement. Many of them use canes like him, many of them use walkers, a few use wheelchairs, and a few have oxygen tanks. To get to their vehicles which they legally can drive, it was necessary that they keep the west drive and the north drive for the residents only. Said reversal of the plans and entry would create �• 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 1 an extremely inefficient and time-consuming operation for the medical nursing staff, for the patients, for the ambulatory residents, for the culinary and housekeeping staffs. It was an inefficient layout if it were reversed. Furthermore, an estimated 100 plus residents would face safety and environmental hardships. Therefore, the Town Center Residents of the Fountain at the Carlotta for vital heath, safety, financial and environmental reasons respectfully requested that the Palm Desert Planning Commission approve the planning and zoning as recommended by the competent staff with the exception that they believed in having the north gate for the residents only. The present arrival and departure of emergency and commercial vehicles should continue as planned and approved by the Planning Department and as utilized since 1989. He said that the comparison of the Fountains at the Carlotta with the apartments at One Hawkeye on Fred Waring and the apartments on Country Club wasn't a reasonable comparison by the staff. They were a senior retirement center. They have restaurant services for the residents. They have nursing services for the people that need skilled nursing and assisted care. In the two apartment houses that are used for comparison on gates, it wasn't reasonable. Those people were younger and their only service would be the post office, Federal Express or United Parcel Service. He had never seen the type of services they have in the way of fire engines and ambulances. He thanked the commission for their time. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MS. TAMMY BUCKLAND, 41-550 Carlotta, stated that their house was where the north gate would be and they live on a blind corner. That was where all the neighborhood kids play. People already fly around that corner and almost hit the kids all the time and by adding more traffic on that street it would just increase the chances of those kids being hit, not to mention she has lived there four years and has never seen any cars lined up trying to get into the Carlotta as far as traffic being backed up and if the people weren't going to be driving and there weren't that many more vehicles, there was no reason to add an additional gate. In addition, there would be family and friends coming which would 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 increase the traffic if they were having them enter the north gate, so she was opposed to a north gate. When they bought their house there were no plans for an entrance there. MS. ROSLYN MONAHAN, 75-683 Duval Court, said that she was one of the residents living in the middle directly across the street from the Carlotta and wanted to go on record as not being opposed to having more residents or services and she wasn't opposed to an Alzheimer's unit. In theory she wasn't opposed to the overall idea. She noted that Ms. Buckland just spoke and her husband is a Palm Springs police officer. Ms. Monahan said she spoke to Ms. Buckland's husband and she wanted to tell the commission that Buck, as a police officer, was adamantly opposed to an Alzheimer's unit. She wasn't, but she worked in mental health and had a different perspective. An Alzheimer's unit in the state of California could not be locked. It was secured. That meant that when someone went out the door, a bell is supposed to ring and the alarms are supposed to go off. Ms. Monahan informed commission that she has a sister in the skilled nursing facility and the same thing is supposed to happen. She went to see her on Sunday and the system didn't work. There was some concern about adding an elevator in the proposed original project and what would happen if the power went off. She asked what would happen if the power went off in the Alzheimer's unit. She only mentioned that, not because she was opposed to it, but because the commission probably didn't understand the difference between locked and secured. She thought the neighbors needed to understand that and be able to voice their opinion one way or the other. She said she would respect whatever the neighborhood wanted to do. Her bigger concern was really the parking and the senior overlay which would allow for a density of almost 1 ,000 people. When she went to the meeting last night at the Carlotta, and she respected the fact that they offered the opportunity for them to meet and she respected the people who worked at the Carlotta and who were trying to put this together, but they would go back to Tucson and Los Angeles and didn't live across the street, so some of that fell on deaf ears. One thing she brought up last night was her concern of the hypothetical. One of the things Ms. Ferguson said was that she couldn't deal in hypotheticals, but ` m 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 Ms. M >onahan wanted to reiterate that they were dealing with hypothetical. Hypothetically a north gate, hypothetically casitas, hypothetically two stories, etc. As a resident who has been there almost 12 years and watched the neighborhood grow, 12 years from now she would probably still be there and hypothetically the Fountains might sell out to someone else. If they sold out to someone else and the senior overlay was applied (which they weren't asking for now) a third owner could increase the density, traffic and parking. She thought the zoning of PR-1 1 sounded interesting and might be reason for the commission to vote to have that, but she didn't want a north gate. If it was appropriate, she would like someone to explain to the audience the mitigating fees. She personally understood housing elements, the five-year strategic plans the cities were held accountable for, she understood there were no teeth in it and that there was a bill in the legislature right now that if passed would put teeth in Palm Desert and other cities to fulfill their five-year strategic plans. But mitigating fees sounded like a buy off. She would not want the City to give any kind of zoning for an exchange of dollars. She asked if someone could address that so they could all go home and understand it a little clearer. MS. LAURI CAESAR, 41-475 Carlotta, stated that she has lived at the corner of the cul-de-sac for almost 11 years and was opposed to the north gate. She stated that she has never seen traffic lined up to the middle gate where they would need a new entrance. Even if they put the residential there that meant that the elderly driving out toward the north end would be where the children all play near where that new entrance would go and she thought that would be more dangerous to the children. It was a non outlet street, but it would bring more heavy traffic into their residential area which wouldn't be safe or a good idea. The other issue was that there have been a few close calls at the original main gate which she felt should be changed as far as being able to see when they exit. There was a blind spot and she was concerned about her children. MR. ROBERT WATSON, 4152 Carlotta Drive, stated that he was directly in the path of the new entrance way to the third gate and 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17. 2001 tow he was strongly opposed to it for safety reasons. There would be increased traffic coming through the area from Hovley cutting through the area onto Sandcastle Lane to get over to El Dorado. There was also a stop there which people do not obey. He thought it was a hazard right now to back out of his driveway and with a new entrance way it would be more of one. MR. PAUL BEATY, 75-686 Dolmar Court, addressed the commission. He acknowledged that this was a difficult issue and appreciated the effort the commission had made to give the residents and the Fountains staff time to work together. He thought the staff of the Fountains had made some good concessions. He couldn't say he was in total agreement with everything. He said he would love to see the walkway go so that they could have free flow through the middle, but he understood their need. He loved the new zone idea and that would protect them and would give the applicant what they wanted in the near future as well as make it more difficult for someone who purchased the Fountains in the future to come in and change things. He liked that compromise very much and thought it was tow a good idea. He was very much in favor of the north gate when the idea first came up because of the impact to the people who live immediately along the south wall and it would be much less if there was a gate on the north. Especially if they split residential traffic, service traffic and emergency traffic. But he could understand the people's feelings who live up near the proposed north gate area. As he said at the last meeting, he lives in the middle and it didn't really impact him, but he thought as a compromise for the good of the whole neighborhood he would still like to see the north gate go in for residential traffic and emergency traffic. It made no sense to have fire engines and ambulances come in the south or middle gate if they were needed at the north end. He also thought the City should consider a three-way stop sign at the intersection at Sandcastle and Carlotta which could help out with some of the safety issues that were being raised. Chairperson Lopez asked if the applicant wanted to give any rebuttal comments. `.. 1 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 Ms. Ferguson said she had a couple of quick points for clarification. The north gate as outlined in the report today would be strictly for residential traffic and for emergency vehicle traffic for the independent living northern side of the campus. It wasn't where friends and family would go to visit. They would continue using the center gate because that is where the call system to the front desk is located. The north gate would be on a remote control system for residents and emergency vehicles. Otherwise, they talked about a lot of the things that were brought up and asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan said he could understand how they would find the north gate a convenient and attractive feature, but he asked if having the north gate interfered with the integrity of the project. Ms. Ferguson said it didn't interfere with the integrity of the project entirely. What it really did was allow their residents to have a private access which was something that kept them from having to wait behind cars trying to get into the visitor access. But the integrity? Probably not. Commissioner Campbell said that the north gate only came about because of the traffic concerns. Ms. Ferguson agreed that it was in response to trying to work concerns out with their neighbors and trying to make the neighbors happy with their development. It was originally not on their development plan and was in response to concerns. They got caught in the middle. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for staff clarification on the mitigation fees. Mr. Drell explained that the senior overlay, like other density bonus or ordinances, required that to get additional units and special standards that the senior overlay affords, a certain number of the units would have to be affordable for low or moderate or very low income seniors. It was originally designed for typical senior apartment projects. For projects like the Carlotta which maintain a high level of services above and beyond a typical apartment project, they have found it difficult to figure out what an affordable rent 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 would be. In essence they were trying to make a house at the beach affordable to low income people and to solve that problem, the City had a very aggressive housing program which provided subsidized units both to seniors and families and in lieu of trying to force affordability onto these high end projects, they would take in lieu a fee which allowed the City to subsidize a senior family or senior household in one of the Housing Authority projects. Staff wasn't necessarily recommending that the mitigation fee be applied to the current request. The modified request was now essentially at the current zoning. Their density bonus was so negligible that any benefit they would be receiving from the Senior Overlay wouldn't justify them paying a mitigation fee, so staff wasn't recommending they pay it in this case. He also stated that it wasn't buying zoning. Many projects changed from five units per acre to 20 units per acre and when they received that large of an enhancement to their property, they would make a contribution to the City's affordable housing program for seniors. In this case it was so negligible that he wasn't recommending it. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments. tow Commissioner Campbell felt the Fountains management had agreed to many requests made by the surrounding residents. Regarding the north gate, the commission hadn't heard from those residents prior to this meeting. The total of the residents using the north gate would be 143 - 11 1 in the town center and 32 in the casitas. She didn't think everyone would be using that gate at one time. She was in favor of having the north gate for the residents and emergency vehicles only. She was also in favor of the change of zone amendment to PR-1 1 to allow 82 units. She noted that Mr. Beaty brought up the suggestion of a three-way stop at Sandcastle and Carlotta and she thought that was a good idea. Mr. Beaty was on the Planning Commission for many years and has lived in that area for many years and she was in agreement with him on that issue. She didn't hear any opposition from the residents that were at the last two meetings. She noted that the Carlotta was there first before the other homes were built, but there was vacant land there and they knew something would be constructed and they chose to live. She felt the applicant had made many revisions from the original plan and she was in favor of the project as presented with the change of zone amendment to PR-11 . %NW 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 Commissioner Tschopp noted that they have seen quite a few changes during the last two meetings. Regarding the requested changes to the conditions of approval as far as delivery times, he asked if the commission was anticipating incorporating those into the resolution. Mr. Drell said those items should be discussed. The members of the audience had not really a chance to hear them. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that the applicant was requesting commercial deliveries Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and he believed that was a change from the staff recommendation of 8:00 a.m. They were also requesting trash collection between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and it was previously recommended by staff to be limited to 8:00 a.m. There was a change in the curbs to be painted a distance of 40 feet and the condition on limiting the number of events. If his memory served right, he thought they weren't limiting the number of events, but asking that they commit to limiting attendance to the number of cars that could park on the site. Mr. Drell said they talked about that and it was difficult to limit in advance how many people might show up. Historically it was his understanding they have had 15 or 20 cars on the street. One of the advantages of the new project would be the addition of 192 parking spaces which historically over time in these projects have more and more vacant spaces as the project ages. Chairperson Lopez noted that these items were requests from the applicant. The times were in the conditions of approval and the commission could make changes to the times if they wished. Mr. Drell stated that relative to the change of zone, since they were requesting a lesser intensity than advertised, the commission always had the option of approving a change of zone which is less intensive as well as add or delete conditions. Commissioner Campbell noted that trash collection starts at 7:00 a.m. in private developments. She also didn't have a problem with 7:00 a.m. for commercial deliveries. Commissioner Finerty said that with regard to condition number 9 and the commercial deliveries from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and condition 11 with trash collection from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., she asked where the 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. time frame came from. Mr. Smith said it was in response to earlier commission comments. In regard to condition number 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17 2001 i..► 22 and the curbs being painted 80 feet versus 40 feet, Commissioner Finerty asked what staff's position was on that issue. Mr. Smith said that in talking with Mr. Diercks, 40 feet was acceptable to Public Works. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification on the exact location of the proposed north gate. Mr. Smith explained that there would be a gap between the proposed north gate and the existing cul-de-sac to the north. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was any other east-west road coming into it. Anyone going to the north gate would have to travel up Carlotta into that north gate and there was no other way to go in or out. Carlotta was the only entry street into the north gate. Ms. Ferguson informed commission that there would be an offset between the north gate and Sandcastle. She said it wasn't a direct relationship. Mr. Smith pointed it out the location on a map. Commissioner Finerty stated that she really appreciated everyone coming to the meeting again and the efforts made on everyone's part. Originally she thought the north gate would be a great idea. However, going with the concept that everyone knew what the situation was when they `.. bought there, it seemed to her that it would be best since they were no longer dealing with the senior overlay issue, to eliminate the north gate for safety purposes, mainly for the children and also for the residents that bought at that end that didn't expect there to be a north gate. Going back to the staff reports for May 15 and June 19, all the conditions for commercial deliveries and trash collection were between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and she recalled a number of people at the last couple of meetings talking about the early noise and she would prefer to see the hours remain 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for both of those. As long as Mr. Diercks could live with the curb painted red 40 feet out instead of 80 feet, he was the expert so she would agree with that. She thought the number of events should be limited and that 12 was reasonable. She lives right across the street from Southwest Community Church and from the Tennis Gardens. She said it was nice to know that those events were limited because they do have quite a bit of traffic generated from those and 12 would be more than reasonable. With regard to the three- way stop sign at Sandcastle and Carlotta, she would like to see staff investigate that. With the issue of the units and zoning, she would agree with staff's suggestion of PR-10 and 77 units. That was what everyone went into this with and would not require a change of zone. The 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 fi j 1 consistency would be there and everyone that bought on the south knew what the situation was and that way it seemed to be fair for everyone. Commissioner Jonathan stated that the proposed change of zone to PR- 1 1 seemed to be a reasonable compromise. The applicant initially came in seeking a significantly more intense usage. The request was reduced from 105 to 82. That simplified the application and they didn't have to go through the senior overlay, development agreement or general plan amendment. Going from 77 to 82 was a also reasonable compromise, so he was okay with it. Regarding the north gate, that was a Pandora's Box. Whatever they did they would make some people happy and some people unhappy. He was not in favor of allowing the north gate. They heard from the applicant that it wasn't really that significant of an issue as to interfere with the integrity of the project. They lived with it until now and he didn't want to create a problem where there wasn't one. He thought the three-way stop was an excellent suggestion and deferred that issue to staff. When they tended to think that a stop sign or stop light would solve all the problems, staff sometimes enlightened them and told them that it just created a whole host of new problems. That was the last thing that any of them wanted to do and it seemed like a very good suggestion, but staff were the experts so he wanted to defer that to them. Amending condition number 22 with regard to the red painting on the curb going down to 40 feet, he again would defer to staff's expertise. He was in agreement with Commissioner Finerty regarding the operating hours and 8:00 a.m. seemed to be more reasonable and he thought the project could live with that and the residents would appreciate it. Commissioner Tschopp agreed that five more units than currently allowed under PR-10 was reasonable and should be allowed. The Carlotta existed before the surrounding neighborhood, but at the same time everyone was making a good effort to come together on a compromise and he complimented everyone for that. He didn't see the traffic increasing any more with the addition of the five units compared to what would occur under normal development on a piece of ground that size. After receiving the clarification on the north gate location and Sandcastle, he would also agree that some of the residents who bought not expecting a north gate should be assured that the north gate didn't go in. He was not in favor at this time of allowing a north gate. He also wanted to see the number 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17. 2001 ``" of events limited. He thought that was only fair and if they left it wide open, the current owners might be reasonable about the number of events they might have, but if they had a new owner, they might decide to have nightly events and that would severely impact the neighborhood. He would also agree with the original conditions of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for the deliveries. Chairperson Lopez thanked everyone for taking the time to attend a third meeting and for all their time and effort. He noted that they have made a lot of changes from density, traffic, gates, fire department vehicles, parking issues, lights, etc., and he agreed with the issues discussed tonight. The times for deliveries and trash should remain from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He acknowledged that other areas begin at 7:00 a.m. and he was tired of running out at 7:00 a.m. to get his trash out in time. He didn't think anyone else should have to go through that. He thought 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. was fine. He said that at one time he was in favor of the north gate because he thought it might help the situation with the south and main gates, but he no longer felt it was necessary in light of the change being made with the zoning. Regarding the curbing, he agreed with Commissioner Jonathan and deferred to the traffic �... experts that 40 feet was acceptable. He also agreed that the three-way stop was a good idea, but deferred to the traffic experts. There were certain things they couldn't control like people speeding through those areas. He said that he has had young children who played in the streets and it was a scary thing. He agreed with the other commissioners on the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., no north gate, investigation of a three- way stop, and the change of zone to PR-1 1 . He said he would entertain a motion incorporating the items discussed. Commissioner Finerty made a motion recommending to City Council approval of a change of zone to PR-1 1 ; with conditions 9 and 11 regarding deliveries and trash collection to be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; that condition 21 remain deleting the north gate; that condition 23 remain limiting events to 12 per year; amending condition 22 to 40 feet; and requesting staff to investigate a three-way stop sign at Sandcastle and Carlotta and one issue that was overlooked that Commissioner Campbell raised, which was increasing or enhancing the landscaping at the main entrance. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2080, approving PP 01-07, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. CHAIRPERSON LOPEZ CALLED A TWO MINUTE RECESS AT 8:11 TO ALLOW AUDIENCE MEMBERS TO EXIT. B. Case No. CUP 01-08 - VERIZON; 02 WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, Applicant (Continued from June 5 and June 19, 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. Mr. Drell noted that the item was still in the Architectural Review process and recommended a continuance to the August 21 , 2001 meeting. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, by minute motion continue Case No. CUP 0 1-08 to August 21, 2001 . Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. TT 30216 - GHA PALOMA GROUP, LLC AND THE KEITH COMPANIES, Applicants Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and tentative tract map to subdivide 10 acres into 32 single-family lots located on the west side of Shepherd Lane, 990 feet north of Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Alvarez explained that this was a request for a tentative tract map on the north end of the city limits. He pointed out the location of Shepherd 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17 2001 •r.. Lane and previously approved tract maps in the area. The current request was a 32-lot subdivision on 10 acres. The tract map would create two cul-de-sac streets extending west from Shepherd Lane. Each cul-de-sac would contain 16 lots and most would face north and south. Lot sizes would range from 9,475 to 15,1 1 1 square feet. This was in conformance with the City's minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and minimum width of 70 feet. He noted that half street improvements would be provided on the west side of Shepherd Lane. There would eventually be full improvements on both sides as properties developed. There is one tract map currently under construction which would provide a connecting road from Frank Sinatra to the project below this one and then this project would continue on with the connection to the north. A couple of items that were carefully looked at were pad heights. There are some existing lots to the west, the Kaufman and Broad lots. A specific condition was proposed requiring the project to maintain no more than a 12-inch differential in the pads heights with the projects to the west. That was Public Works condition number 15. Due to the general topography of the site, other pad heights were looked at and there was a ridge peaking near the center around Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford. There would be some pad height differentials which he thought would be addressed with retaining walls creating as compatible as possible the differences in the pad heights. The project would provide new perimeter walls on all four sides. The perimeter wall on the Shepherd Lane access would have a 20-foot setback which would provide a meandering sidewalk and perimeter landscaping. Architectural Review would be reviewing the plans on July 24. The units were single-story with an approximate height of 18 feet. The perimeter landscaping along Shepherd Lane had been reviewed and was approved by ARC. It would comply with the other tract maps approved in that area. It utilized drought tolerant materials consistent with the desert environment. In terms of density, the project would be below the maximum allowed of five units per acre and the density would be approximately 3.2 units per acre. The project is consistent with the PR zone and met the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The physical improvements would be consistent with the City's subdivision ordinance and California State Map Act. Staff believed the findings for approval could be met and for purposes of CEQA the project would not have a negative impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to `""' 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 conditions with one minor modification requested by the applicant. Under Riverside County Fire Department condition number 9, it read that a fire sprinkler system, fixed suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. Mr. Alvarez agreed that this project would not require fire sprinkler systems and with commission's permission, he requested that staff go back to the Fire Marshal to reevaluate that condition. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the site location was on the west side of Shepherd and asked what was between Shepherd and Portola right now. Mr. Alvarez said there wasn't anything approved east of Shepherd at this time. Commissioner Jonathan said he recalled dealing in the past with differentials in pad elevations and he thought there was a standard established to address that concern. The standard said that new projects couldn't be more then 12 inches period. Mr. Drell clarified that the ordinance said they had to designate those elevations on the tentative map and the final grading plan couldn't be more then six inches different than that. Not all of Palm Desert is flat, so there would be times there would be differences in pad heights, it was just that they had to show it and then they couldn't change it and it was out there for people to see. Commissioner Jonathan said in that case they were in compliance with that and wouldn't be surprising anyone. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff had renderings or elevations of the structures themselves. Mr. Alvarez said he could get them from his office. Commissioner Jonathan said that it was something that could be addressed later, but procedurally he knew that when they do commercial projects the commission looks at the site layout and what the buildings would look like and historically they haven't been doing that with residential and he wondered why that was since they were approving it. Mr. Drell explained that many of the tract maps are custom lot subdivisions. There was no requirement when subdividing property to show any of the housing units because they might be selling them off and building individual homes on them. Sometimes they were submitted, but there was no requirement. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there is an approval process before a developer puts up a residential structure. Mr. Drell said that a tract like this would go before ARC. Commissioner Jonathan said it didn't address this application, but he wondered if at some point we should modify our own procedure because he was sure some planning commissions in some 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17. 2001 cities chose to look at the physical structures when it comes to residential and not just commercial. Mr. Drell said that in our current system the Architectural Review Commission has architectural control. Technically in the ordinance ARC approves architecture as long as the houses comply with all the requirements of the zone. Commissioner Jonathan said they do that with commercial as well, but the Planning Commission still got to see what they were recommending. They saw the renderings and elevations and understood what they were approving. With residential it often seemed like they were approving something that is two dimensional and when something finally goes up it is as much a surprise to him as anyone. Mr. Drell asked if Commissioner Jonathan would like to review every singe family home that gets built. Commissioner Jonathan was pointing out that there is a difference in the procedure for commercial versus residential and at a later point it should be addressed. Maybe that was the way it should be or maybe it wasn't a big deal for the Planning Commission to see since ARC is seeing it and approving it in the same way that Planning Commission sees it for commercial projects to see what they are approving from a physical structure standpoint. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that the information said that the children living in this subdivision would be attending Nelly Kaufman and Palm Springs High School and asked if that was correct. Mr. Alvarez concurred. Commissioner Campbell noted that on Shepherd Lane, there was previously a project to the north of the proposed one before them which was approved. She asked what staff proposed to do at the end of the approved TT 30025 and if the street would be completed down to the City owned property to finish the street. Mr. Alvarez said that the street would be completed as development occurs in the area unless the City wanted to do the improvements and then receive reimbursement. Mr. Drell said there was really no way to get reimbursement. The problem was if someone was in the middle of the block and had to jump two or three lots to put in a road, the would typically require them to do that. At some point in time they could end up with a chaotic road which gets wide, then thin, and wide again. Then typically the City would come in and clean it up and complete it. It was determined on the pace of development and if it looked like it was happening reasonably quickly we VAM' 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 would let the development do it. Commissioner Campbell asked if they were just going to install a barricade for the time being. Mr. Drell concurred. He asked Mr. Alvarez if there was temporary emergency access to Portola which would exist until Shepherd Lane went through. Mr. Alvarez explained that right now everything was coming in off of Frank Sinatra although there would be an emergency access on Portola. But Tract 29444, the first tract out there, would have to provide a connection to Frank Sinatra and he assumed that would be the same situation coming from the north to the south. Commissioner Campbell asked if that meant they wouldn't be seeing Shepherd Lane open to Portola until everything was constructed. Mr. Alvarez concurred. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MARIO GONZALES with GHA Paloma Group LLC, 28561 Avenida Diosa in Cathedral City, addressed the commission. He stated that he was one of the developer/partners in this project. They reviewed the conditions and he thought Mr. Alvarez had done a great job of describing what they intend to do. They accepted the conditions as presented except for the one condition regarding the fire sprinkler system. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would move for approval and defer to the Fire Marshal with regard to condition number 9. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would second that. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would concur with the motion but he would like the commission to consider augmenting the motion to include authorization of the chairman to write a letter to Desert Sands Unified School District and Palm Springs Unified School District to explain to them that from a planning standpoint it made no sense and was inexcusable that residents of the city of Palm Desert should be attending Palm Springs schools and that financial considerations were involved. He felt the welfare of the children should be paramount and from a planning 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 i.•• standpoint it abundantly made more sense for children living in the city of Palm Desert to attend schools in the city of Palm Desert. Commission concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2081 , approving TT 30216, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Commission also directed staff to prepare a letter from the Planning Commission to Palm Springs Unified School District and Desert Sands Unified School District regarding boundaries and the importance of Palm Desert children attending Palm Desert schools. D. Case No. TPM 29956 - ROYCE INTERNATIONAL AND WARNER ENGINEERING, Applicants Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide 13 +/- acres within the Portofino project (southwest corner of Country Club and Portola) into three parcels including a .58 acre CVWD well site at 73-755 Country Club Drive. Mr. Drell explained that this action simply implemented the previous approval and in no way changed it. It was purely for financing purposes and staff recommended approval. Chairperson Lopez o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MIKE SMITH, 73-185 Highway 1 1 1 in Palm Desert, said that basically explained the request. They were not changing what was previously approved, they were merely making legal tots of the approved uses that were already approved. They also accepted the conditions. %NW 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 With regard to the widening of Portola, Commissioner Campbell asked if those poles would be removed. Mr. Smith explained that the electric company would not let them move them or underground them. They would be doing the exact same thing as the fire station to the north and the project to the south. They had to build the curb really close to the pole. He also confirmed that they would remain there. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2082, approving TPM 29956, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. PP 01-08 - PRESTNUKSIC ARCHITECTS FOR KLAFF REALTY, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan to demolish an existing building located at the northwest corner of El Paseo and San Pablo and construct a two-story 19,300 square foot retail/office building; remodel the existing building located at the northeast corner of El Paseo and Lupine Lane with a 1 ,400 square foot addition at the east end of the building; construct a new 7,000 square foot restaurant fronting on Highway 1 1 1 ; and remodel the north elevation of the Office Max building. Mr. Alvarez explained that this was a unique project in the sense that it is a redevelopment project. Typically they dealt with new property in the 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17. 2001 city and this one was redevelopment of an outdated shopping center. He described the location of the property and indicated that the existing shopping center contains an Office Max retail store and another major tenant was Coco's which fronts on Highway 111 . He noted that the project falls within the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan which was adopted by the City Council in 1987. The goal of the specific plan was to promote and maximize economic development of some of the older properties in the city and the properties that didn't conform to current standards. Some of the specific policies were aimed to promote revitalization and to assist in the success of the existing and future businesses. One of the specific policies of the Commercial Core Area Plan addressed El Paseo and its intent to create a pedestrian-oriented environment which would minimize parking lots, vacant parcels, and would maximize the pedestrian-oriented retail environment with ease of access. In terms of the project itself, the first component of the proposal included demolition of the existing building at the northwest corner. This building would be demolished and a new two-story 19,300 square foot building would replace it. The first floor would be retail use and the second floor would be offices. There would be a subterranean parking �.. lot with 25 parking spaces. In terms of the architectural design for that building, the first floor would be 19 feet high with a setback of 38 feet which complied with the new 2:1 setback to height ratio for corner buildings in the commercial zone. The second floor had a 32 feet 3 inch height and it exceed the C-1 General Commercial height by 2 feet 3 inches. Although it was setback considerably at 62 feet from the corner of El Paseo and San Pablo, it was still short of the 2:1 ratio by 2 feet 6 inches. The applicant was requesting an exception. They feel the height is necessary to break up the flat roof structure and it is tiered. He showed the various elevations to commission. He noted that it would be a significant modification and improvement to the existing architecture. The second project component was a remodel and addition to the existing building located at the northeast corner of El Paseo and Lupine. The proposal included a 8,300 square foot remodel and 1 ,400 square foot addition at the east end of the center. The addition would include additional retail space and the architecture would tie in with the retail building at the corner of San Pablo and El Paseo and other architectural details and themes used throughout the center. The building at the corner of Lupine and El Paseo would increase its height to 25 feet to create a tower element. The 2:1 corner ratio would not be met. This `` 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 3 was an existing condition. Tower elements provide focal points and tie projects together along long stretches of flat roofs. In essence this project would create that effect. An exception to the 2:1 height ratio was being requested in this location and would require City Council approval. Commissioner Jonathan noted that this was an expansion of the existing building, so it would be widened to the east. Mr. Alvarez said that was correct and indicated that the addition was at the corner at the east end and would be 1 ,400 square feet. Mr. Alvarez explained that the third component included a new restaurant building on the Highway 1 1 1 frontage. It would have 7,000 square feet of restaurant use and would sit between the approved Norwalk Furniture Store and Coco's Restaurant. The building would be single story and featured elements architecturally found through the center. It would feature outdoor dining at the northwest corner of the building. The building would have a maximum height of 26 feet. It met the standards of the C-1 General Commercial District. The last two components included the remodel to the north elevation of the Office Max building. That would include the demolition of the row of existing retail stores on the north side of the building which would accommodate new parking spaces. The last component was the redo of the parking lot. Currently the parking lot is a sea of asphalt. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the Coco's building would be in front of the north elevation of the Office Max building. Mr. Alvarez concurred and explained that it was actually removal of square footage to the Office Max building. In terms of visibility, that area probably wouldn't be highly visible except to those driving through the project. Mr. Drell said there would also probably be a sign for Office Max that wasn't shown. Mr. Alvarez explained that the redo to the parking lot would result in a parking lot that complies with the parking lot shade tree requirement and there would be new desert plants and trees throughout the center which would be more compatible with our environment consistent with the City's goal for drought tolerant landscaping. Mr. Alvarez stated that site access would remain and all street frontages had access and there were two on San Pablo. The only one that would be modified would be the El Paseo access. Currently the El Paseo access allowed ingress and egress. With the remodel the egress onto El Paseo would be deleted. Staff felt there would be adequate access to the project. A question was brought up as to whether the El :5 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 Paseo access would be sufficient. A letter was provided by the El Paseo Business Improvement District and they wanted consideration to enlarge this back to provide ingress and egress. Staff's position was that ingress only would be adequate. Removing the exit would allow for more retail space for the remodeled building along El Paseo and would also provide an easier flow for pedestrians traveling east and west from one end of the center to the other. There was a full description in the staff report outlining the direction of the parking and the goals and policies that pertain specifically to this property. One of the goals of the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan said, "The overall goal of the city's planning and redevelopment policies in the study area shall be the promotion of high quality compatible economic growth. Emphasis should be placed on solving potential parking or traffic problems in a positive manner rather than through restrictions on the level of economic activity." He thought there was an interesting situation here and a positive manner to solve the deficiency of 44 parking spaces created by the new additions and the new buildings. The Gardens on El Paseo's parking structure was constructed partially with funds provided by the City to not only provide parking for the Gardens, but to promote future r.. economic development along El Paseo to create a centralized facility that would be an anchor for the El Paseo corridor that would provide parking availability and create a central gathering place from which the rest of El Paseo's shopping and restaurant experience could be taken in. Over 200 extra spaces were provided in the parking structure. Staff looked at the situation and felt the use and credit of 44 spaces at the parking structure across the street was reasonable and would be a positive way to solve a parking deficiency that would be offset by much needed improvements to the center, an economic development strategy. Staff also felt that being the central focal point of the El Paseo corridor, the parking structure at the Gardens would draw customers from that location to the new retail environment which is a new aspect and would complete a missing gap on the north side of El Paseo between San Pablo and Lupine. It would encourage pedestrian access for people to stroll down El Paseo without seeing a large parking lot or vacant lot. Staff felt that was an adequate solution and met the intent of the Specific Plan. In terms of the analysis, he said this would be a much needed improvement to the center and would promote economic development, revitalization, provide a pedestrian-friendly environment along El Paseo and would bring into compliance their parking lot which is much needed. Staff believes the �— 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 proposal complies with the intent of the Specific Plan. Staff was recommending approval, subject to conditions. The findings for approval could be made and for purposes of CEQA, the project would not have a significant negative impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared. He also noted that there was a letter submitted to the commission from the Business Improvement District and there were a few items they brought up which would probably be brought up as part of the public hearing. Staff addressed item number three, consideration of the exit and entrance, item number one was a request for shaded nooks and comfortable bench areas for pedestrians, item two was placement of a possible piece of artwork on El Paseo. Those were items that could be discussed. One other item was the property manager at the Gardens expressed a concern with the two-story building and the views that would be reduced from the Pacifica in the Desert Restaurant located diagonally across the street. Commissioner Campbell requested additional information on the underground parking. Mr. Alvarez stated that it would be accessible from the interior of the parking lot. It would have 25 subterranean parking spaces and staff anticipated that it would primarily be used by the office use on the second story, although it could be used by anyone. It was for the public. Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant was requesting assistance from the City for the underground parking. Mr. Alvarez said he didn't know. Mr. Drell said they might or might not and that would be a request to the Redevelopment Agency and wasn't part of their request before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Campbell said it was her understanding that the parking structure at the Gardens with the 200 parking spaces was not meant to allow a deficiency of any parking for any project. Mr. Drell said it was his understanding that it was provided generally for use by projects consistent with the Specific Plan and the project was built to be consistent with the Specific Plan. He noted that they previously approved all the shops across the street from the Gardens behind Jensen's with virtually no parking again to promote the goals of the Specific Plan and along El Paseo there had been many trade offs in terms of parking to achieve the overall goals for the success of El Paseo. He participated as intimately in the design of the Gardens as anyone in the city and it was specifically to provide additional parking. He asked why the City would spend $5 million to provide extra parking if it wasn't for anyone. Commissioner Campbell said she understood 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17. 2001 that, but that was for buildings already there, not a new building being constructed that was lacking in parking. Mr. Drell said that was correct, and in this case it was a matter of weighing the benefits of the project relative to whether there is a parking problem or not and whether the extra spaces at the Gardens could practically address that. Commissioner Jonathan noted there have been times when the Council has looked at projects that meet the ordinance with regards to parking and said they didn't care about the ordinance and required more parking than the ordinance required. He asked if staff was aware of anything specific or anything in the Specific Plan that addressed whether the parking structure was intended to subsidize new projects in terms of parking deficiencies. Mr. Drell stated that he wrote the Specific Plan, so he had some knowledge about it. One of the goals in his belief was that they created the extra parking to promote the overall economic development of El Paseo. Across the street, even before there was the Gardens, they approved a project in back of Jensen's and in that case there was a decision to build the project with virtually no parking because of the overall goal to eliminate the back of a supermarket on El Paseo. �.. The Specific Plan at the time, which was written in 1987, recommended a project like the Gardens, but did not anticipate specifically additional parking there. The additional parking he believed was consistent with the goal of the plan of creating positive solutions to parking problems which then allow the correction of problems like at this property. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't necessarily disagree and didn't mean to debate the interpretation, but he was asking in terms of them having specific guidance, the Specific Plan is a written document and Mr. Drell participated in the writing of it, and he asked if Mr. Drell was aware of any written provision in the Specific Plan that directly addressed the issue of providing parking spaces to meet deficiencies of other projects. Mr. Drell said that other than parking, the solution should be positive in nature and parking should not be used to restrict development when the overall goals of the plan are being achieved. Commissioner Jonathan asked if other than broad stated goals if there was anything specific. Mr. Drell said no. They were trying to find justifications for practical solutions to parking problems and if the parking spaces exist, we should avail ourselves of them. %W" 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 Commissioner Tschopp asked if the towers created the height excess of 2 feet 3 inches. He asked if when exceeding the height limit there was a need to codify that or if they had flexibility and how high they could go. Mr. Drell indicated there is a section in the code that allows for towers that don't exceed 10% of the floor area of the pad area of a building. There were 50 foot high towers in the city and that was how they were approved. The City Council requested that any of those applications under that code section go to them for approval. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ALAN SAPOSNICK, a principal with Klaff Realty, addressed the commission. He said he was from Chicago, Illinois. He said that he was before the commission about a year ago on an informal basis and appreciated the opportunity to speak them. He said they purchased the property in February of 2000. They came before the Planning Commission and had been meeting with various elected officials of the city as well as with staff on numerous occasions to try to fine tune the plan from where they were a year ago. They made a number of changes which they felt addressed that. The feedback from everyone had been helpful to them in this process. They met with the El Paseo Business Improvement District and a variety of other bodies. He said this site was unique. Clearly looking at the site today there were very few properties which have exposure to both Highway 1 1 1 and El Paseo. The Office Max lease was part of the old Lucky's lease from many years ago and there is another 18-19 years remaining on it and they don't control the sub tenant under that lease. Office Max is a sub tenant of a sub tenant of Lucky's. That was really outside of their purview as well as the vacant space adjacent to the Office Max that has been vacant for a while, but there was about 7,000 square feet adjacent to the Office Max that is a portion of their property but they weren't in control of it. Based on that they tried to take what was in the center and move it to the perimeter. They felt that the retail space, rather than bringing people into the center and continuing with the building adjacent to Office Max, it made sense to take the center of the property and turn it into parking very similar to what they have up and down the 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 street and move that real estate toward the perimeter toward Highway 1 1 1 and El Paseo. Their plan was to address that. This project would be in excess of $5 million before tenant improvement costs. They would be contributing to the community in terms of jobs and taxes. On June 12 they went before the Architectural Review Committee and received approval of their overall plan. The changes included the demolition of the building adjacent to Office Max, relocation of the parking garage, and trying to recoup their investment elsewhere on the site. The issues that were raised before and continued to be raised were parking and height. He doesn't live in this community, but in Chicago, and he heard people talk about height and he goes up and down El Paseo and could see two story structures throughout or single story monolithic facades that are 25 feet tall. This building is 30 feet tall in some sections and in one section it is 32.5 feet tall. If the Planning Commission and Council decide that 32.5 is too tall, it could go to 30. He thought architecturally it wouldn't look as nice, but the building could conform to that height on the corner. In terms of the setback, they made a point of conforming with an r.. ordinance that was drafted but hadn't been adopted. In looking at competitive products that have recently been completed on the street as well as product several years old, none of them would conform to the new ordinance and they were trying to work within that. As it relates to the corner of El Paseo and Lupine, if they were to conform to the ordinance on that corner of the building, it would be setback almost to the vacant parcel behind it which wasn't practical. They were trying to work with the new ordinance, deal with the issues of height and trying to economically make the project work with what was existing today and trying to be able to recoup some of the $5 million investment they were making. It only made sense to invest $5 million if there was going to be a return on their investment. The second issue was parking and how they could make everything work on their site. They were located directly across from the Gardens. There were a couple hundred extra spaces there. They were asking for whatever credits were available to them from the City to allow them to make their project work. Short of putting additional below grade parking on their site, which was expensive and they would ask the City for a contribution for that because they would make VAM 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 it available to the public just like the Gardens lot is available to the public. They could do it on their site, it was only a question of cost and at the end whether the need actually exists. Again, a conformance with code could take place, it was only a question of money. The project currently didn't support additional parking. He said that John Vuksic, their architect from Prest/Vuksic, would tell the commission more about the plan. MR. JOHN VUKSIC, representing Prest/Vuksic Architects, thought the main issues had been covered and he would talk about the architecture. He showed two elevations of the building on the northwest corner of San Pablo and El Paseo. He said they strived to create a building that worked well for retailers on El Paseo and provided more of a canvas for their storefronts. On the sides of the buildings that don't have retail storefronts they stepped up the architecture. There were some bowed metal roofs and it wasn't a vertical face. Since the last time they met the scale of the project had been lowered substantially. Most parapets on the remodeled building had come down three feet. Elements had come down five feet and as much as 12 feet. Their goal is to create street sensitive architecture. The building steps back substantially as it increases in height. The second floor element on the corner of El Paseo and San Pablo is 32.5 feet tall. The ordinance reads that an architectural element can exceed the height limit as long as it is under 10% which that element is, so it was within the ordinance. The style of this project is what the local architects refer to as desert contemporary architecture. This particular project transcends between the style of the Norwalk Furniture building, the Gardens, and somehow it transcends even the style of the Office Max building. They worked very hard to achieve that. The project has a sophisticated blend of broken down masses, thick walls, deep recesses, a rich use of color and texture. They were extremely proud and excited about this project. They wanted to work with the City to make it something that they would all be proud of and he thought they had a real opportunity to finish off one of the largest pieces of property left on El Paseo that really needed some serious work. 5 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17 2001 `'_ Commissioner Finerty asked what kind of restaurant was being considered. Mr. Saposnik said it was what he would call convenience restaurants. They weren't white-tablecloth sit down restaurants and there would probably be three or four different uses there. Panda Express was currently under lease and they were working toward completing a lease with Quiznos, possibly the relocation of Swiss Donuts from the existing building, and then they had one additional space that would be available for lease. Commissioner Campbell asked what the grade was of the southeast corner where Pacifica is compared to the corner of the proposed building. Mr. Saposnik said he knew the Pacifica building was higher. Commissioner Campbell asked about the overall building. Mr. Vuksic said he didn't know what the overall height of the %W Gardens was, but the Pacifica Restaurant was 19 feet to the floor of the patio and then the railing element extended up above that another three and a half feet compared to their building which would be 19 feet to the top of the rail, so there was another three and a half feet there that they were lower and then a foot and a half in grade change. Their second level was about five feet below the Pacifica Restaurant. Mr. Drell said that the height of the Gardens at the top of the parapet was over 40 feet from the El Paseo grade. Mr. Saposnik said that the sight line of Pacifica currently looks toward their property right at the Office Max sign. But that was still only a small portion of the visibility of what could be seen from Pacifica. They had to literally be standing in the corner of the cafe on the patio to be able to see their property in the first place. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that someone sitting on the terrace having dinner wouldn't be able to see his building. �- 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 Mr. Saposnik said someone sitting in the corner of the terrace would be able to see it. From the roof of the terrace they could see the current octagon building and behind it the Office Max building. They could also see the canopy of the building right across the street that has a glass canopy. But they'd have to be on the terrace in the corner to see it. The broad perspective of what they get sitting on the terrace was toward the main highway. Commissioner Tschopp asked how important it was to eliminate the egress. Mr. Saposnik said that was really more in response to comments they received over the past 12 months. There was a desire for more continuous flow down El Paseo and for smaller openings so that people didn't look upon a sea of parking as they walked by, so they tried to narrow it and generally with retailers their preference was for people to get into a center and then they would figure a way to get out, but if the only way was to get out, then how would they get in. If they had to pick one way or the other, their preference was to come into the center. If people would prefer that it be two-way that would be fine, but that wasn't consistent with some of the comments about looking at the parking because that created a wider opening. Mr. Drell said it was staff's suggestion and was staff's preference that there be no access from El Paseo and he didn't know what the objective of the Association was in that none of the other blocks have vehicular access crossing the sidewalk. Everyone knew that to get to parking lots on El Paseo it was by going down side streets and getting access which is what this project had. When walking along the sidewalk, staff thought it was ideal if they didn't have to worry about cars zooming in. This way was a compromise. He asked Commissioner Campbell if she could address the issue of why they felt this block needed mid-block access when none of the other blocks have it. Commissioner Campbell said that when the applicant first came before them a long time ago to see what they thought about the project, she felt it was very important that it should have an exit onto El Paseo. There were many entrances: one on Lupine, two on San Pablo, and one on Highway 111 . They were all 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 going in and out. She thought it was very important when people are parked in that project to have them exit on El Paseo to be able to be on the street for the rest of the way instead of just exiting on San Pablo and the other directions and leaving. They wanted them coming onto the street. If they could only have one driveway, they would prefer an egress onto El Paseo. Mr. Saposnik said that if that was the case, it would have to be both an ingress and egress because his leases restrict his ability to change any entrances, either ingress or egress from the property. He believed that if it was ingress he could probably convince the tenants to make the change, but if it was only egress, they would probably request that it be two-way. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would be in favor of it being two-way. When Mr. Vuksic made the presentation to the Association, they requested that. Mr. Saposnik said he was flexible on it. ... Commissioner Jonathan asked if that meant the elimination of access on El Paseo to be consistent with other properties, or if he needed some kind of an access point there. Mr. Saposnik believed that consistent with his leases, at this point he would need access or risk being sued by his tenants. When dealing with retailers, Coco's could determine whether he got to do the project or not. They have the right in their lease if he changed the parking configuration. Those were the kinds of things that tenants could dictate to landlords depending upon the circumstance and time frame and they bought the property with existing leases. He was trying to take a puzzle and put the pieces together and satisfy all the parties and their tenants, for better or worse. Commissioner Jonathan stated that when planning needs come together with economic needs, then they have new projects. `W 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 Commissioner Campbell noted that the General Manager of the Gardens expressed concern regarding the two story office building being right across from them. Mr. Saposnik said they would be willing to consider a restaurant there, but that created more of a parking problem. Their first plan had a restaurant. Chairperson Lopez asked for clarification on the restaurant use. Mr. Saposnik said right now it was just the one building, 7,000 square feet, at the corner of Highway 111 and San Pablo and then Coco's and K.C. were existing. There were no other restaurants planned. There had been discussion both on the 1,400 square foot addition about doing a coffee shop there, but most would prefer being on Highway 1 1 1 . They had considered as one option taking the corner of El Paseo and Lupine and putting in a restaurant there like the Daily Grill that was on a corner of another block to see if it would work there, but it was intended to be general retail unless someone came along and it was consistent and acceptable to the City to do that. Chairperson Lopez asked if there was some sort of methodology when they were looking at the use of these buildings because parking was an issue. They had an overall concept of what they were thinking. Obviously Office Max is open during certain hours, the restaurants might be lunch and dinner only. He asked for an overall view. Mr. Saposnik said that they did a parking study about a year ago to see what the traffic was in and out of the site both during the week and on weekends. They did that both during the season and off season. Office Max generates a reasonable amount of business from that location, but much of it was delivery and not from people visiting the store. They didn't think that was a high traffic use; it hasn't been historically and their sales also reflect that. There is a 7,000 square foot vacant space next to it that they have tried to lease for three years and nothing had happened there. They didn't see that as a large use. If they got the space back, they probably would never be able to use all of it because it f 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 low is long, narrow and steep. That building has a different elevation from the buildings on El Paseo. There was a four-foot elevation that would have to be filled in and most retailers didn't want to go with a store that deep. The Office Max and the vacant space seemed to be minimal uses there. They were trying to satisfy Office Max's parking needs up front and when they put the new building on El Paseo and San Pablo that created some issues for Office Max because they were taking away from their parking field. They were hoping to solve some of that by going below grade, but the below grade issues with the elevation changes created problems, so that forced them in the end, both from a construction scheduling standpoint and from an aesthetic standpoint, to rip down the adjacent building next to Office Max to give them parking and that would also solve some of Coco's issues because Coco's customers often parked where the new restaurant building would go. They felt that because Coco's had approval rights the only way to really satisfy Coco's and to improve their parking situation was to rip down the building adjacent to Office Max, which made their customers' accessibility to their location better, didn't require people to walk across the ` Highway 111 entrance to get to the restaurant and that was appealing. He said parking caused them to look at office for the other location. They have a certain amount of income stream from the property today. They would add $5 to $6 million or greater and he had to generate at least a 10% return for whatever else he put into the property. He was taking $200,000 of revenue and ripping that down. He has the building along El Paseo which is generating rent but he would probably only spend $20-$25 a foot on that building to renovate it, which would probably improve his rent, but it was renovation of an existing building and then he has the existing building on the corner of El Paseo and San Pablo that was about 8,000-9,000 square feet that he is ripping down and replacing with 17,000 feet, but he is generating rent from the 9,000 square feet. It was a question of what his incremental rent is and his incremental cost. Trying to balance that all out caused them to look at a two-story building. In looking at most of the real estate up and down El Paseo and in particular being across from the Gardens, they thought the size and massing was consistent with what they see on other parts of the street and would be .� 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 complementary. He thought if this entire property was the same height it is today, it wouldn't improve the street much or cause people to feel there was something inviting to come down to. Right now the site is pretty short and all the buildings on that side are short today. He hoped that gave the commission some idea of the parking issues that they have tried to tackle and address and the people to deal with. The only way he supposed to solve the problem would be to cut out some square footage or add more below grade parking. There was just no other way to do additional surface parking and making economics work at the same time. Commissioner Tschopp said that he knew that Mr. Saposnik didn't control the lease or the future of the Office Max store, but in Mr. Saposnik's expertise as a retailer, he wondered if Office Max were to ever vacate, that was a pretty good sized store and he asked what Mr. Saposnik envisioned going in there or how that space would be used. Mr. Saposnik said that in 19 years Office Max would vacate or renew their lease, but it wouldn't be with the current in between party already there. At that point he would feel comfortable minimizing the size of the store, abandoning some of the space and looking at taking retail there and having it with two separate entrances. Right now the only entrance was fronting the parking lot facing San Pablo and he could potentially see a separate entrance either on the corner facing 1 1 1 or toward Coco's and doing two distinct tenants there instead of one larger tenant. That would continue to be a tougher space to lease just because it is in the center of the property and doesn't have the same visibility. With Norwalk Furniture going up and with the other things they are doing, it would make the visibility that much more difficult. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan said that the architecture was wonderful and he complimented Mr. Vuksic on it. He thought it was creative and beautiful. The site layout made sense. It would be an improvement and he would 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17 2001 like to find a way to make it happen. The height exceptions he didn't have a problem with. ARC looked at them and some of them seemed to meet the exception already built into the ordinance and ARC indicated that they actually enhanced the project and he had great respect and faith in their expertise. He said he read staff's comments and heard Mr. Drell's comments regarding parking and it resonated with him. One of the major objectives of the RDA when putting money into the parking structure at the Gardens was to create opportunities for improving El Paseo and everything it has to offer. To him it was a matter of degree. He was a little concerned that the parking already assumed a 15% reduction which he didn't think was actually automatic, so he wasn't sure that there was 15% of unused space that didn't require parking and he wasn't sure they could automatically jump to a 15% reduction. Beyond that there was another 15% deficiency. From the basic parking requirement they were 30% short and they were seeking to make that up with the parking structure. He thought that might be asking too much from that particular resource. He would like to see the Gardens parking structure assist in the implementation of this project, but he thought they were asking from it a little bit too much. He was sympathetic but was not persuaded by economic arguments. He meant it when he said that if the economics were right and the planning needs were right, then it was meant to be. If it wasn't, it wasn't. Having said that, he said he would like to find a way to compromise that would make it work. He wanted to hear the other commissioners' comments, but right now he didn't really have a problem and was strongly in favor of the other aspects of the application and he thought it was wonderful, but he had a concern that the deficiency in parking spaces was too much and maybe they needed an opportunity to sharpen their pencils and cut that in half and find some more parking spaces or maybe they did need to reduce square footage a little bit, jack the rents up a little bit here and there and see if they could still find a way to work together and make it work. He knew that developers, particularly sophisticated developers, had all sorts of tricks up their sleeves and could be creative when they needed to be, so he was hopeful and optimistic. Commissioner Campbell also liked the project. She thought that Mr. Vuksic did a good job. She requested the ingress/egress access on El Paseo. She was also a little concerned about the height exceptions. One thing she didn't like to do was deny one property owner a two-story r.. 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 3 building when there are so many other ones on El Paseo that were previously approved, but they weren't the ones that make the full decisions. She noted that Public Works' condition number 6 said that the El Paseo driveway should be designed to provide access for trucks to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. One of the things the Association strived to do was keep trucks off of El Paseo. They also asked the restaurants for any truck deliveries to enter closest to the business, to make their delivery and exit at the earliest street instead of going all the way down. They wanted to eliminate that. They could enter any other ingress/egress including San Pablo, Lupine and Highway 111 , but not on El Paseo and she would like that condition deleted. She requested verification regarding parking before she would make a final decision. Otherwise she agreed with Commissioner Jonathan that they might have to reduce square footage in order to accommodate ample parking on the premises. Commissioner Finerty basically concurred with the other commissioners. She loved the architecture and thought that Mr. Vuksic did a very nice job. She didn't have a concern with the height or the setbacks. She thought the architecture justified the exceptions. She noted that Mr. Alvarez began by stating that this was really a redevelopment project and she wanted to see some effort made between the applicant and RDA with regard to the parking so they could find a number with help from the Gardens structure, perhaps more underground parking, and perhaps a little assistance from RDA to make this project happen. She concurred with suggestions one, two and three from the El Paseo Business Improvement District. She thought that adding shaded nooks and benches would be a great idea for people to stop and rest. A piece of art would certainly be nice and she concurred with Commissioner Campbell about there being no trucks on El Paseo. She was in favor of a continuance to work out the parking issue. Commissioner Tschopp said he viewed this a little differently. This was a very tired former grocery store type center that was of absolutely no benefit to El Paseo and very little to Highway 1 1 1 and he saw it as an opportunity to create some continuity and some synergy on El Paseo and to tie it into Highway 111 . He was a little bit more optimistic and thought that the proximity to the Gardens to utilize 44 parking spaces was very much within the realm of doable and a benefit to both the 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17 2001 Gardens and to this project. If they looked around at other cities and went to the beaches, huge parking structures exist that cities have built for the benefit of the public to use to walk blocks and he thought that was why RDA spent $5 million on building the additional parking spaces at the Gardens. In his mind he thought this was a unique opportunity to use some of those spaces and at the same time improve a center that faces the Gardens that wasn't very attractive right now. He thought the parking, the money the RDA spent on the parking, the proximity, and the benefits to the city were such that he didn't have a problem with the parking. Regarding the entry way, his feeling was that staff was correct in trying to keep it as an ingress and eliminating the egress. There were plenty of exits on Lupine and San Pablo for people to quickly get back up onto El Paseo. What staff way trying to do was close the gap there and create a safe walking, viewing type area so that people walking down El Paseo wouldn't feel like they had to dodge traffic and could spend more time looking in windows and hopefully stopping. He thought that was also a real benefit. He thought the architecture was very good and fit in, that the project would be a great improvement, and it was time to get rid of an old, tired shopping center and put a new face on it and utilize some of the existing excess parking located right across the street. Chairperson Lopez also felt the architecture was great. He said he didn't have a problem with the height or setbacks and that it would go well with the existing structures on El Paseo. Regarding access, he was concerned with just one direction because if someone did go the wrong way it would create a difficult situation with cars meeting head on and trying to back out on El Paseo or back into the parking lot area. He was concerned about that and it would be better with both ingress and egress. Regarding the parking issue, he wasn't sure that he was thinking more of what would happen December through April in Palm Desert when everyone was here. He was thinking more along the lines of what would be here 10 years from now when we continue to grow and hopefully continue to develop more tourism and bring more visitors into the area and they outgrow the parking facility at the Gardens. That would also put additional pressure on this facility. He liked the idea of perhaps going to RDA and looking at some type of assistance on additional subterranean parking. This was a huge commitment and if they were going to make a commitment such as this he thought it should be a commitment that they could be very proud of for many years ahead. He INOW 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 would also agree with a continuance to look at options to address the parking situation. Overall he thought it was a great project and it sounded to him like it was the only thing they needed to address. He asked if there was motion. Commissioner Jonathan said it was a testament to the applicant and he complimented him. He indicated that for a project of this scale they were really down to just one issue and he thought they had done a great job and that spoke highly of the work they had done. He clarified that he shared a perception of the goal that Commissioner Tschopp talked about as well as Mr. Drell and he understood the function and investment of the RDA funds into that parking structure. To him it was a matter of degree. He wanted to recommend a continuance and at least give all the parties involved another crack at doing a better job in reducing the parking deficiency. If they came back and said they really looked at it and nothing could be done, he'd have a hard choice to make and he didn't know which way he would go. He might approve it because he understood the goals and objectives of the parking structure, but he might not be able to bring himself to do so. He was hoping that something could be done and he proposed a continuance. Mr. Saposnik said a continuance would be fine and said that in past months, he met with Dave Yrigoyen once he became the RDA Director and with City Manager Ortega while he was still the acting director and they provided all of their financial proformas information to RDA, who had an outside consultant review all of them in terms of a reasonable return on their investment and they had made recommendations internally as to what they thought would be a fair contribution; however, they said there wasn't any funds available. He would be glad to back to RDA and pursue the subject with them and show them their revised numbers based on the new plan, but any support the commission could lend toward that would be appreciated. Commissioner Jonathan commented that Mr. Alvarez talked about this project being a redevelopment project, he didn't necessarily mean to indicate that there were RDA funds available, but he would leave that to the applicant and staff to work on and asked if 30 days would be enough x 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17 2001 �ft"' of a continuance. After concurrence by the applicant, he moved to continue the matter to August 21 . Chairperson Lopez reopened the public hearing. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing Case No. PP 01-08 to August 21 , 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. F. Case No. PP 01-13 - CARL VOCE AND ROBERT RICCIARDI, Applicants Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan of design for a three building office complex (34,760 square feet) on a 96,000 square foot site on the north side of Alessandro between San Pascual and San Juan, 73- 720 Alessandro. Mr. Smith stated that the property is zoned Office Professional. It was rezoned in 1989. At that point there was a development proposal somewhat similar to the one before the commission now. That project was not implemented and expired. The proposal was for the three office buildings. The two buildings on the westerly side of the property would be single story and the building at the southeast corner would be a two- story building. It was a terraced two-story building in that the second floor was setback a considerable distance similar to the building the commission just reviewed on El Paseo. He said the site is vacant with existing curb and gutter. There were overhead power lines traversing the site north to south at about its midpoint. Access would be via San Juan and San Pascual. There would be 139 parking spaces north of the buildings and 76 would be covered with carport structures. The project complied with OP zone requirements with two exceptions, both of which staff felt could be reasonably, easily addressed. Relative to the 2:1 setback requirement the building on the southwest portion of the site needed to be notched in a fashion similar to the building at the southeast corner in order to meet the setback requirement on the corner. On Building A, the single story building on the northwest corner of the site, %FW 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17. 2001 it was currently shown at 20 feet high and would need to be reduced to 18 feet and the setback adjusted to provide the minimum 20 feet, which was shown at 18. In discussions with the project architect, he felt all these issues could be easily remedied. In 1989 there was concern raised by area residents with respect to having driveways going to the east and west streets on the residential streets and at that point, that applicant amended the plan to provide access onto Alessandro instead of the side streets. That concern was brought to the applicant's attention and they had supposedly canvassed the neighborhood and the neighborhood no longer had that concern. With that information, staff supported the current application before the commission. Mr. Smith said he did receive one phone call from an area resident and she expressed support for this plan. He stated that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact had been prepared and staff's recommendation was that commission approve the project, subject to the conditions, two of which addressed the non- conforming issues on setbacks and building height. Commissioner Campbell noted that there was a driveway shown on San Pascual and asked if there would be two on San Juan. Mr. Smith said yes. Commissioner Campbell asked what would happen to the power lines. Mr. Smith said that the under grounding of the power lines was addressed in the Public Works conditions and they would be undergrounded. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT H. RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A, in Palm Desert, stated that in the staff recommendation, one of the driveways was to be closed and there would be landscaping there. He pointed out that this wasn't just one lot. There are three lots facing San Pascual and two lots facing San Juan and they also bordered on Alessandro. The applicant in 1989 had basically the same plan, but they closed some driveways because of neighborhood concerns and they were forced to go to one driveway. Going to one driveway with that many cars was not good planning, therefore, they tried to mitigate it as much as possible by keeping the driveways as close to the intersection as possible so that people going in and out would have less of an 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 impact on the neighbors. Mr. Voce went to a lot of the neighbors and showed them the plan and that was one reason there weren't a lot of people in the audience in opposition. He did his homework. He thought that basically the neighborhood in general was in favor of the project even though there might be one or two tonight that weren't. He understood that people in opposition usually came out quite heavily if they were against something. They tried to do something that would be good for the neighborhood but at the same time as the Highway 1 1 1 corridor grows in both directions, development started to encroach on the streets both north and south of Highway 111 and El Paseo. Wherever a regional shopping center was seen, what was around it usually grew out quickly because it drew people to it and there were other people that successfully gleaned off of it and it created a healthy environment. Regional shopping centers as a whole created healthy shopping environments. With El Paseo being everything Palm Springs wanted their Palm Canyon to be which they lost years ago because of their anti development concepts and Palm Desert encouraged development under regulated good growth and not unregulated unreasonable growth which Palm Springs continually tried to do. He thought El Paseo had become everything Cliff Henderson envisioned it would be and more when he started Palm Desert after World War ll. Since the City Council in its wisdom encouraged the wealthy golf courses within the city of Palm Desert, which would be the people who would have the cash flow to generate a very successful El Paseo, it happened. He came here in 1960 and they did one of the first buildings on El Paseo and they could buy those lots at that time for $10,000 each. Those days were over, Palm Desert was a success, and they had this type of growth, so they were proposing this project. He showed the commission drawings of the proposed buildings. He hoped that the commission would support the staff recommendation and stated that they were in agreement with the staff report. Stepping the building back and cutting off the corner would be no problem. He also pointed out where there would be a lot of shaded parking. Commissioner Campbell said that now that Mr. Ricciardi eliminated one driveway, she asked if that first driveway that he would be using would ... 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 be facing the residents or if it was facing the maintenance yard for the telephone company. Mr. Ricciardi said it was getting close to both. Commissioner Campbell asked if the middle section of the parking lot was covered. Mr. Ricciardi said yes, it was all covered parking. They tried to get in as much covered parking as possible. This building wasn't on the main route, this was a place that would generate lower rent and the applicant wanted to create more shaded parking in addition to having nice looking buildings that were relatively simple and that would encourage people to want to be there. Commissioner Campbell asked if Architectural Review also approved the covered parking with the buildings. Mr. Ricciardi said yes. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. GORDON STEIN, 44-858 San Juan addressed the commission. He stated that his house is across the street from the proposed project and he has lived there 11 years. He felt the proposal is a positive thing and was glad to have the property developed. He had some concerns about negative impact there and had talked to his neighbors in the last week about this. He was concerned with the ingress/egress that left off into these neighborhood streets. They didn't have a good overall site plan that showed where the residences were relative to these buildings but they did have fairly quiet neighborhood streets and they were wondering what was going to happen with 190 cars or the impact of those cars being let off onto their neighborhood street. Down the street on San Juan there were quite a few kids that play in that area. He and his wife counted 12 to 15 kids out there. He cautioned his teenagers to drive slowly through there as he himself does. Back when he bought his property when the previous 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17. 2001 ~ development was being looked at, he considered the idea of turning it into an office building himself if that other project went through and he talked to the City about it and they said no, it wouldn't happen unless he had direct access to Alessandro because of the impact at that time. He thought that was when they had that access to the property changed over to Alessandro. That was of major concern to himself and others in the neighborhood. He questioned how well that canvassing effort was done. On a personal level, they were directly across from the project and he was glad to hear they at least talked about eliminating one of the ingress/egress points directly in front of them. He was concerned about how that would impact their property with the lights of the cars exiting at night shining directly into their property and the view to the parking structures and he wanted to make sure that was a pleasing aspect to the neighborhood. He was at the meeting to request a 30-day continuance to maybe take a look at how those issues would impact the area. He asked if there was a traffic study done, the project would drop a lot of people into the area and he wanted to make sure they were safe in that neighborhood and the project didn't have a bad impact. Being in the business of development related issues, he was very pro development and he wanted to see good things happen, he just wanted to make sure they take a good look at it, didn't move too quickly or make any mistakes. In talking with his neighbors, he said they would be very diligent in looking at the issues and talking with the owner and City and wouldn't delay the project any further. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Stein's house was the first house next to the telephone yard. Mr. Stein said yes. Commissioner Campbell complimented him on the remodel he did to his home. Mr. Smith put up a copy of the assessor's map for the area that showed the property and the parking lot to the east and the Stein home and the driveway relative to it. He said that the center of the driveway was about '� 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 70 feet south of that north property line. It was just at the edge of the Stein property. That was with the elimination of the northerly driveway. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a rendering of the parking structure. Mr. Smith said he didn't recall seeing the parking structures but they would be the typical carport structures as seen on Village Court and like the office complex behind Ruth's Chris. Mr. Ricciardi said that Mr. Stein's comments were excellent. He explained that when the City rezoned this property there were public hearings. He indicated that the applicant didn't rezone the property, he was only developing property that the City had zoned. To put all the traffic onto Alessandro created a lot of problems and Alessandro was the street people would take. He didn't think a lot of people would take the side streets that meander through all that residential to get down to Fred Waring or to find another street that cuts over to San Pablo or Portola. Most of the traffic would come out and go back to Alessandro to go either way. The same thing would happen with San Pascual. The driveway worked better off of the two side streets and hardly infringed upon the R-1 across the street. They could work with Mr. Stein if that was the commission's pleasure to table it for 30 days and they would work with him to see if they could mitigate some things with landscaping on his side to shield the parking lot and the structures. Being an office project, there wouldn't be a lot of lights there. On Saturdays and Sundays there would hardly be anyone in this place. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the parking lot lighting would be the low standard type. Mr. Ricciardi said yes, he liked to use the bollard lights that were four feet high. That worked the best and got away from the 24- foot high normal parking lot lights. By going to the parking structure which would be about 7.5 feet high that would put the lights under them and would just shine down. The lights from the parking lot would not really impact the residential and the building on the other street would hide most of it. With the cantilever over that parking, they would have some down lights in the soffit. j 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17. 2001 "" Mr. Drell said that when the Palma Village Plan introduced the concept of putting offices on Alessandro, it anticipated that very likely the depth of the offices would be two lots to create a uniform line across so they wouldn't have the situation of having single family residents facing onto the commercial property. The other option Mr. Stein had under the Palma Village Plan was the opportunity to ask for OP zoning. In those situations they tried to create offices which would be a transition between the commercial use and the residents. Mr. Ricciardi thought they had done that and hadn't put any of the offices up against the residential area behind them. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan didn't see a need to defer the matter. He appreciated the comments made by Mr. Stein, but the basic concerns Mr. Stein expressed were ones any resident would express and he thought they had been addressed in the overall design. As Mr. Ricciardi indicated, the office was primarily on Alessandro, it had no direct impact on the residences and the residents were made aware and usually a lack of neighborhood attendance indicated support for the project, so he assumed the homework had been done and that there was overall support. The access points made sense with regard to the neighborhood. He thought that any kind of mitigations which might be required didn't need to be specifically addressed here. It sounded like the applicant was open to sprucing up landscaping and doing some modest changes if they were required to meet Mr. Stein's or any of the other residents' concerns. It was his hope that the applicant, staff and residents would work together to accomplish that. He believed they would, but overall he didn't see a need for continuing it. It accomplished what was desired under the Palma Village Plan and should be approved. Commissioner Finerty concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. Commissioner Tschopp said this building would be a nice addition to Alessandro, but the backs of the other unattractive buildings would never help this area. Mr. Drell thought it could be improved and asked if any of the commissioners had seen what happened with the back end of the �... 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 Verizon building. Commissioner Campbell said it is gorgeous the way they painted it. Mr. Drell said that they came in requesting to install a generator in the back, so when people come to the City, staff made some recommendations and eventually they got enthusiastic about it and did a nice job. Commissioner Campbell said they used beautiful colors and it was really art deco. Chairperson Lopez concurred with the other commissioners. He thanked Mr. Stein for attending the meeting and he appreciated his comments, but thought that the overall project fits well and with the flexibility of the architect to fix any problems, he was in favor. Mr. Smith stated that he would like to add a condition relative to the under grounding of the utilities because it was not in the Public Works comments so he would recommend the addition of condition number 10 under the Department of Community Development. Chairperson Lopez noted that in the staff report it said it was required. Mr. Drell explained that it needed to be in the conditions of approval. Also for Mr. Stein's benefit, he recommended a condition to address the need for enhanced landscaping where the driveway is being eliminated to reduce the view impact to the parking lot to the greatest extent possible. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2083, approving PP 01-08, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. TT 26562 Amendment #1 - RBF CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND AMERICAN REALTY TRUST, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a one-year time extension to TT 26562 Amendment #1 , a 687 unit residential development, 18 hole golf course and 225 suite hotel on 420 acres located on the north side of Frank Sinatra Drive between 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 Cook Street and Portola Avenue, 74-500 Frank Sinatra Drive. The request was withdrawn. See comments under Oral Communications. Action: None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (July 5, 2001 ) Commissioner Finerty said that basically they talked about land use around the college. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (July 10, 2001) Commissioner Finerty indicated they spent a long time discussing what type of wall should be along the north and south sides of Fred Waring. There were many comments and they had a direction they were headed in, but no final decision yet. F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) %I.. 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification regarding under grounding of utilities. Earlier he heard that off of Portola where they are very prominent and very close to the street, they couldn't be under grounded. His understanding was that they tried to get everyone to underground. Mr. Drell explained that there were transmission lines and local distribution lines and it had to do with the voltage on them. While these were distribution lines, those were the ones that were required to be under grounded. Transmission lines cost around $1 million a mile and were much more difficult to underground. Commissioner Tschopp said that meant the City doesn't require it if it is cost prohibitive. Mr. Drell said the ordinance didn't require it, probably because of the cost, although it was his understanding that the City was trying to put together an overall program to attempt to underground those transmission lines and in talking with the utility folks, technology was improving and that was one thing that was actually getting cheaper, but it had been a burden and was so high that even people like the Marriott hadn't been able to do it. Chairperson Lopez believed those had to be air conditioned or at least cooled because they were very hot. Mr. Drell said that in turn created problems with the transformers and getting access to them quickly. Commissioner Campbell noted they were very unsightly and asked if that would become part of the development so that they could put landscaping around it or something like that to make it look better or if it would just be sand and poles. Mr. Drell said it would be in the landscaped area. Chairperson Lopez asked when the pole on Shepherd would be taken down. There was a telephone pole sitting right in the middle. Mr. Drell said staff would look into it, but it would eventually be moved. 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 3., m. , PHILIP DREL , Secretary EST: J PEZ, Chair son P I Desert Pla nin Commission /tm 53