Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0821 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - AUGUST 21, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 7:00 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 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 July 17, 2001 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the July 17, 2001 minutes as submitted. Motion carried • 5-0. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 ..ri V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell indicated that there were no pertinent July 19, 2001 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 01-16 - THOMAS & JANE BANNAN, MICHAEL AND NANCY ROSENBERG, AND RALPH AND DIANN KINER, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust lot lines between Lots 63, 60 and 61 in Silver S pur to accommodate a wall. , Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. PP 01-08 - PRESTNUKSIC ARCHITECTS FOR KLAFF REALTY, Applicant (Continued from July 17, 2001) Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan to demolish an 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 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 111; and remodel the north elevation of the OfficeMlax building. Mr. Drell explained that the applicant was requesting a continuance to September 18, 2001. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing PP 01-08 to September 18, 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 01-08 - VERIZON; 02 WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, `W Applicant (Continued from June 5, June 19 and July 17, 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. Alvarez indicated that the applicant was going to be late and requested that the item be continued to the end of the public hearings. Commission concurred. C. Case No. SA 01-57 - SWAIN SIGNS FOR "DANSK", Applicant Request for approval of an exception to the City's Sign Ordinance (Section 25.68.300) to allow a wall sign above the 20-foot height limit on a building located at 73-300 El Paseo. Mr. Alvarez noted that this building is known as the Donald Peck building located on the north side of El Paseo just west of Lupine. The request was for an exception to the 20-foot maximum height for signs on buildings. He �.► 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 Y X pointed out that this building is unique in that the design features limit the locations of signs which make it difficult to place a sign under the 20-foot height limit. He showed a picture of the proposed sign with white channel letters which were approved by the Architectural Review Commission. The maximum height of the sign would be 23 feet. Due to the arch design, he said this was the most logical and probably the only possible location to place the sign. There were some requirements and findings that had to be made to approve the exceptions; that the sign be integrated into the architecture of the building and that it is not detrimental to the businesses in the surrounding area. Mr. Alvarez said the findings could be rnet. For CEQA purposes the request is a Class 1 categorical exemption. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Campbell noted that there was an existing temporary sign and asked how tall those letters were. Mr. Alvarez wasn't sure and deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the sign was lit. Mr. Alvarez said that the 7 sign had internally illuminated individual letters, so the illumination would ,r come through the front of the face, so it was a white illuminated face. The applicant said he wasn't sure of the size of the letters. Commissioner Campbell thought they looked very proportional to the building right now at that height. Mr. Drell noted that with a banner's typical height of three feet, then typically a letter size on a typical banner was two feet, which is the size as these letters. Mr. Alvarez clarified that the proposed letters are 30 inches. Commissioner Tschopp noted that it was an attractive building and the architectural style pretty much dictated where the sign would go and asked if it was taken into consideration by the Architectural Review Commission at the time of building approval. Mr. Alvarez said no and thought it was probably something they should look at. Mr. Drell stated that virtually all of the modern commercial buildings in the city in the last 15 years have had to get this exception. Commissioner Tschopp suggested that it might be time to review the ordinance. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant for any additional comments. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 MR. JUAN RODRIGUEZ, Swain Signs, 1384 E. 5th Street in Ontario, California, said he agreed with staffs comments. He thought with the structure of the building the exception was necessary. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell thought that the proposed letters, which were only six inches higher than the temporary banner, were in proportion with the size of the building. She was in favor and moved for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2084, approving ,., SA 01-57, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. CUP 01-13 -JEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM SPRINGS AND DESERT AREA, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and conditional use permit to develop and operate a community center facility on a 10-acre site on the west side of Portola Avenue, 1600 feet south of Gerald Ford Drive, 36-775 Portola Avenue. Mr. Smith noted that the site plan was on display. He explained that the request was to take the existing site, 10 acres on the west side of Portola north of Frank Sinatra, and approve in a conceptual fashion a community center on the site. The proposed center would provide educational, cultural, religious, social and recreational programs and activities. The applicant at this time provided only a limited amount of information. What they were seeking was a limited approval of the future use of this property_ They required this early limited approval before they could close on the property �" 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 ' and to aid in the fund raising for the project. He said this wasn't unusual for non profit facilities of this type. The site plan showed the building with a central courtyard area. The building faced Portola Avenue. To the south and west was a playing field, a soft ball area, a playground and three basketball courts. Around the perimeter of the site to the north and on the east side of the property is parking. The site plan at this time showed 204 spaces. The main ingress/egress point would be taken from a new street which would be constructed between Shepherd Avenue and Portola on the north side of this property. A secondary access would be off Portola Avenue and it would be right in/right out only. He noted that the Planned Residential zone permits facilities of this type subject to approval of a conditional use permit by Planning Commission. Staff came up with some issues with the current proposal. With the limited amount of information, staff was unable to evaluate the adequacy of the parking. While 204 spaces sounded like a significant number, but not having floor plans and an indication of the use of the facility, staff couldn't come up with an evaluation of it. He stated that when the project comes back at some point in the future, there was a long dead end , aisle situation on the southerly end of the Portola side parking. The access point would need to be moved to the south in order to make that area more usable. The applicant indicated that the access points would be gated and would be closed when the facility is not in use. They showed an access gate to the Shepherd Avenue area and staff suggested that they look at a pedestrian access on that side of the project and leave the wider gate system as an emergency access only. The applicant indicated that the project would probably be two stories. That hadn't been completely determined at this point. He pointed out that the height limit in the zone is 24 feet. The applicant indicated a desire to have outdoor recreational lighting for the softball fields and other recreational areas. It would need to comply with Ordinance 826, the outdoor lighting requirements in the city. One letter of objection was received from Mr. Caurro. He expressed concern with the non residential use of the site with the high levels of traffic which would result and with the light pollution from parking lots and outdoor recreation facilities. Staff felt the matter of light pollution could be addressed when a full application was received. The lights would have to comply with the ordinance. The concerns with respect to the non residential land use and the potential for high traffic volumes were concerns staff typically heard when someone wanted to build public facilities such as parks, churches, hospitals, libraries, etc. Considering that the project would be on a major street and take access 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 off of a connector street on which there would be no homes and would have the majority of its parking located away from residential units, staff thought this was an acceptable location for this type of facility. When the project was better defined and there was a complete application, staff would be in a better position to come back with conditions to mitigate whatever impacts might be identified. Given the lack of information, staffs recommendation was for commission to adopt a resolution approving in concept a community center facility on this property. There was one condition of approval which stated that the applicant, when they have a complete package of information for staff, go back through a public hearing process for the regular, usual approval of a precise plan of design. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. LEWIS KENT, a resident of Palm Desert, said he was also an Officer of the Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area and was currently the President of the Board of Directors of the Jewish .. Community Center. He thanked the Community Development Department for their consideration of the application and the members of the Planning Commission for allowing him to address them. He said that the Jewish Federation was eagerly looking forward to constructing a community center which they believed would enhance the cultural and educational services available to the community. The Federation wanted to build a facility which not only met all of the city's code requirements, but one that was also architecturally attractive and a welcome addition to the city and their neighbors. When they first considered this site, they were also concerned about the elements raised in the letter of objection dated August 8 by Mr. Caurro. He said they talked to a number of architects recently about that very topic. They have been conducting a competition to select an architect and had reached a decision, but he noted that each and every architect told them that these issues could be addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of the city and their surrounding neighbors. They wanted to pledge and promise that they would do that. They would be fully cooperative at all times. They also wanted to promise that when the community center becomes operative, it would at all times conduct its programs and activities in a way that is not intrusive or violate the MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 j privacy of their neighbors or impede their quiet enjoyable use of their property. They promised to be a very good neighbor and what they thought would be a very valuable addition to the city. Chairperson Lopez asked if there were any ideas of hours of operation and typical days of the week. Mr. Kent said they really hadn't decided that yet, but in connection with the question of traffic, it was something to be considered. If having traffic late at night was going to cause a problem, then they would adjust those hours of operation to eliminate that problem. They wanted to be there for the optimum use of the members and the people who wanted to avail themselves of the facilities, but on the other hand there was an area where they would reside and they had the concerns of the surrounding neighbors in mind and would keep those concerns in mind. Whenever a neighbor comes to them with a problem, they would sit down with them to resolve the problem. Commissioner Campbell asked if they would be having a ny religious services at this location. Mr. Kent said no. Commissioner Campbell said they would only be social and recreational programs and activities for teenagers, dancing and music. Mr. Kent clarified that it was called the Jewish Community Center, but that didn't mean that only Jewish people could join. He said that Jewish community centers exist all around the country and most if not all of them have non Jewish members. He said non Jewish members would be welcomed at this facility. Commissioner Tschopp asked how many members Mr. Kent anticipated using the facility. Mr. Kent said he hoped it would be a whole bunch. It would make the cost of operation and maintenance less of a problem. At this time he couldn't even speculate on the numbers. Before they turned over the 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 first spade of dirt over, they would do a focused group survey. A number of people would be calling families in the area to find out what their interest was in the community center, if they would join and what they would like to see them doing there. They would also be doing a written survey. They would be getting a valid statistical sampling of what it is people want and how many members they could expect. Reading the newspaper and being a full-time resident, he also knew that this community was growing in size and that meant there would be more people coming in and more would want to become members of the community center. Initially he thought they would build in phases after they have the approval of the City to go ahead with the detailed plans once they are prepared. He didn't think there was going to be sufficient money or necessarily enough members at that time to put up a structure that they would ultimately like to have there. What they would present was the ultimate design - a plan for a building when it is really complete. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Kent had an idea of how large, how �.., many square feet the two-story building would be. Mr. Kent said it was impossible to say at this time. One could argue 90,000 square feet, but it might be 50,000 square feet. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that they were saying they would be providing 240 parking spaces. Mr. Ken said that wasn't a certainty either. The site plan was done in order to prepare their application. It was a conceptual plan. He didn't know what the details would look like or if they would even use the same architect. He did say that the architect they have selected has done a lot of good work in Southern California and he thought the commission would be very pleased with his consideration and concern for the location of the site, the use of the surrounding area, and his creativity and innovative design, which they thought would be very attractive. He couldn't go further than that right now, but it would largely be a function of how many members they have. rm 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 ..rtt Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the applicant was seeking approval for the conceptual use of the property. At a later time once they determine the needs of the community and designed a specific project, they would be coming back to the commission. He asked if the applicant understood staffs concern that parking would need to be adequate, lighting would need to comply with the ordinance, ingress and egress points would need to be addressed in terms of compatibility with traffic and all those kinds of issues would need to be addressed in detail and he assumed the applicant would be willing to work all of those concerns out with staff. Mr. Kent said that he communicated that already and stated that was exactly what they intend to do. They understood they would have to come back. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that at this time it was just the conceptual approval of this type of use for the property that Mr. Kent was requesting. Mr. Kent concurred. Commissioner Tschopp asked how important the lighting of the ballfields would be. He understood it was all conceptual, but based on Mr. Kent's experience with other community centers, he asked how important the night lighting was to the activities of the center. Mr. Kent said there would probably be some activities out there, but the lighting would be designed very carefully and they talked to the architect so that it was focused, it would be down, and as he understood it a person would not be able to read a newspaper if they were standing three feet away from the perimeter of the property. It would be very carefully designed so that it didn't intrude on their surrounding neighbors. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the lighting was important to the night time activities being planned there. Mr. Kent said it was a consideration. He said that if for no other reason, if they had night time activities and had parking there, they 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 would want lighting for the people driving in so people could see where the parking is located. Commissioner Tschopp explained his concern was more about the ballfield lighting and knowing the concerns that have been expressed in other areas of the city when trying to put in parks and ballfields, the neighbors and adjacent property owners and their concerns from the light poles themselves to the illumination. That would be something that would need to be seriously addressed in the future. Mr. Kent said that was what they wanted to do and he wanted to be very clear with every member of the Planning Commission. It is their goal to be sure that everything they do in this design is such that it does not intrude on the privacy and quiet enjoyment of the property of their surrounding neighbors. It was important for them to do that because if they didn't and if they had neighbors that were angry at them all the time, no one would be happy and that wasn't a good arrangement and they were aware of that. r.. Chairperson Lopez asked Mr. Kent for his address for the record. Mr. Kent said he lives at 38-851 Lobelia Circle in Palm Desert. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan thought this would be an appropriate use of this property. It met the kinds of objectives set in the past when they have talked about churches and community centers being in residential areas but fronting on major streets. It complied with those requirements. He said that he has the same concerns articulated by the applicant and staff, but he was confident that the applicant would work through those issues and resolve them to the satisfaction of the City as well as the residents. From a conceptual use standpoint, he was in favor. Commissioner Finerty concurred. She stated that it was very nice to have an applicant who was so willing to work with the neighborhood and their �` 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 } l concerns about the neighborhood and their project was very apparent. She appreciated that. Commissioner Campbell stated that she wasn't against the Jewish Community Center, but she thought it should be in a different location. She didn't think they should make an exception to have this facility in a residential area. She thought it should be in a more industrial or commercial area, otherwise, they would have the same problems they had with the community church on Hovley Lane West. They had been through that where the neighbors complained and the church said they were going to take care of the problem, but the problem was never taken care of, so she felt that since it is Planned Residential, she didn't think they should make an exception to allow it. There was a letter in opposition from Mr. Caurro who said he purchased his property with the understanding that it was only going to be used as a residence, not a commercial use. She stated that she was not in favor of having the community center in this location. It would be opening a can of worms. Commissioner Tschopp said in concept he didn't have any concerns with the community center as planned. Lacking a lot of facts it was difficult to give the applicant a lot of direction because he still had concerns like the applicant about mitigating the potential traffic impacts on residential neighborhoods, Shepherd Lane, etc. He knew that engineers would tell them that they could keep the lighting down, but in a residential neighborhood they would still see the poles. He knew that whether it was a home already built, a property owner planning on building a home or a developer, that may or may not be perceived as an impact on the value of their property. Also, the height of the building depending on how it was setback with the architecture might or might not fit. In concept he thought it was a good use on a piece of property that fronts on a busier street as opposed to having backyards back up to Portola, but he concurred with the applicant that a lot of work needed to be done with the residents and adjacent property owners to address those concerns. Chairperson Lopez agreed that conceptually the project fits well into the area and he echoed the concerns already expressed regarding parking, hours of operation, usage, noise, etc., especially in a residential area. He thought the applicant should be aware that when they come back with their full 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 r.. presentation, there might be that situation where lighting may not be allowed. They might want to take into consideration programs and activities that do not require a softball field with lights on it, but activities more conducive to indoors as well as the use of low level lighting. He did think the concept was good and asked for a motion. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would make the motion. He also noted that parks, recreational and community types of facilities should be in residential areas because that's where the people using the facility would be located and they needed access to the facility. PR zoning envisioned that by permitting community centers within that specific zoning so from a planning standpoint it made sense in this location. He knew that traffic, noise and lighting would be an issue. On an optimistic note, there have been some good experiences like at the soccer park where they worked with the neighbors and they haven't had a single complaint in the years that soccer park has been in existence, and there are lights at the Civic Center and at the COD driving range, so there were examples where it could work, but he cautioned the applicant and concurred with the comments made that if lighting was not going to work, it ultimately would not be permitted in the precise plan. If they needed 400 parking spaces that might limit the size of the building or the recreational facility and all of those issues would need to be integrated into the ultimate design and he was sure an experienced architect would be fully aware of that. He moved for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Campbell voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving CUP 01-13 in concept by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2085, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Campbell voted no). ''"' 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 x E. Case No. PP 01-15 -WESTVEST, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to construct a three-unit apartment building located at the southwest corner of Sunset Lane and Abronia Trail. Mr. Alvarez explained that the subject property is at the southwest corner of Sunset Lane and Abronia Trail. The property is approximately 10,000 square feet and zoned R-3 multifamily residential. The applicant was proposing a three-unit triplex which would have one 1,550 square foot unit and two 1,520 square foot units. All three buildings front on Sunset Lane, have two-car garages and would have individual fenced rear yards and patios. In 1998 the Planning Commission approved a similar design across the street to the east. That project was a six-unit condo project which had a triplex model that was identical to the proposed one. The same architect was used. Mr. Alvarez showed the landscape plan. He informed commission that on June 14 the Architectural Review Commission reviewed and approved the project subject to adding some window detailing or recessing on the windows. He noted that the Planning Commission had revised elevations and put a copy on display. The applicant added the detailing on all the windows on all sides. The elevations included Spanish the roofs, stucco finish and some trim colored accents. He distributed a material sample board. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the building was two stories, 24 feet maximum, which is permitted in the zone. It would be adjacent to other multifamily uses and two-story units to the north and east and some other single story multifamily residential units to the south and to the west. The required development standards were outlined on page two of the staff report. Mr. Alvarez stated that the project would meet all the development standards for the R-3 zone. There was one correction regarding parking. Mr. Alvarez said that the R-3 multifamily zoning parking requirement required two spaces per unit with one covered, so that should be modified. The project met that requirement. The requirement was six and the project would provide six. He thought the project was compatible with the area and would be consistent with other uses in the neighborhood. For proposes of CEQA, the project is a Class 3 categorical exemption. Staff recommended approval, subject to the conditions. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on why all the windows weren't consistent with the same grid pattern. The grid pattern was on the 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 top and the bottom elevations but not in the middle. Mr. Alvarez said it was probably because those windows faced the rear and suggested that the applicant address that issue. The ones on the bottom and the sides were the ones that faced the front/street elevations. Mr. Drell pointed out that some of the windows were sliding doors onto a balcony. Commissioner Campbell noted that upstairs,there were still three windows that didn't have the panels. Upon questioning by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Alvarez pointed out the locations of the front doors. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GARY DEPHRATES, 373 Ogle in Costa Mesa, California, stated that for the windows in the back, it wouldn't matter to him either way if the commission wanted grids in them. It wouldn't be a problem. Commissioner Jonathan said that looking at the Sunset elevation, the entrance to the two units was between the garages. Mr. Dephrates pointed them out. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell thought it was a great project and mirrored the existing architectural design across the street. She was in favor of the project. Commissioner Jonathan said he was also in favor and suggested that grids be added to all the windows. He thought it was a design element which would improve the overall product and wasn't very costly. Commissioner Finerty agreed with Commissioner Jonathan about putting the grids in all of the windows. That was an added attraction and she thought it was a great project. `" 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 Commissioner Tschopp concurred. He thought it would fit into the neighborhood and work well. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2086, approving PP 01-15, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 01-08 - VERIZON; 02 WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, Applicant (Continued from June 5, June 19 and July 17, 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. 1 Mr. Alvarez reminded commission that this item was before them in June when it was continued to allow the applicant and ARC to review the compatibility of the 24-inch diameter flag pole which was originally proposed as a stealth communication tower. When it went back to the Architectural Review Commission,the commission was not enthusiastic about the 24-inch diameter size of the pole and recommended that the applicant prepare some photo simulations of the site showing what this would actually look like and potentially look into other alternatives and solutions for this site. With that direction the applicant went back to the drawing board and brought back a proposal which included a stealth mono palm which has been used throughout the desert. He pointed out the flag pole location and indicated that the applicant addressed the visibility of this site and moved the mono palm toward the southwest back toward the comer of the building. Mr. Alvarez explained that the tower would be 50 feet and would be more compatible as a mono palm with the other palm trees. ARC's only concern was that this type of tree was a date palm design and they wanted two additional live date palms added. Mr. Alvarez stated that there was a revised photo simulation which included a 25-foot high and 35-foot high date palm added into the picture. It created a plentiful grove of palm trees with the 50- 16 + MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 +r foot high artificial palm tree in the center. The unique thing about this site was that it would still contain the antennas within the 24-inch diameter pole, so no antennas would be visible and they would see the artificial fronds and pole without antennas. Staff felt this was a more acceptable alternative and recommended approval. Mr. Alvarez indicated this was a Class 3 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes. Commissioner Jonathan said he was intrigued by the new design and asked if it was new technology that allowed antennas that wouldn't protrude from the center column. Mr. Alvarez deferred the question to the applicant. He said the applicant was able to limit the height and still have the antennas inside the pole. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that it might set a new standard for future antennas and in his opinion was a vast improvement. Commissioner Tschopp noted that there was no provision in the conditions of approval for ongoing maintenance of the palms (i.e., if the palms should die) and asked if the applicant was required to replace the palms or maintain the grove in the manner presented. Mr. Alvarez stated that the City typically requires that the property owner and lessee to maintain the property and recommended that the commission add that as a condition of approval. Mr. Drell stated that it should apply not only to the palms being planted, but to all the palms on the site now. Commissioner Jonathan said it should apply to the antenna as well and there was a standard condition. Commission concurred with the additions. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ED KRUGMAN with 02 Wireless Solutions, 4300 Lapham Street in Riverside, California, stated that they were very fortunate to have found a new vendor for this project that is a highly recognized vendor in the industry, and what they were able to do was take what was the 24-inch pole that they talked about before with the antennas completely enclosed and apply an exterior finish of a palm tree and then add the fronds on the top of that. So the antennas would be completely enclosed. He said that the top four feet underneath the date palm bow would be a fiberglass cover and the antennas were enclosed inside that. This location lent itself to that application eftw 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 i because to the west was the mountain and the ability to have the antennas facing in a functional direction was less than in some other applications. They were looking forward to the use of the technology in other locations because it has a fresher, cleaner look, but he wasn't sure it would work everywhere when they were trying to address a full 360 degree pattern. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty thought this was a huge improvement over the flag pole and concurred with the project. She thought it looked great and was glad the applicant found the new vendor with that technology and hoped it would continue to work throughout the city. She moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell concurred and seconded the motion, although she said she would have liked to have seen what the flag pole would look like. Commissioner Tschopp agreed that it was a vast improvement and hoped the technology continued to improve. Chairperson Lopez also thought the upgraded technology was unique and hoped it was tremendously successful in its operation to set a new standard in the city. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting 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. 2087, approving CUP 01-08, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of a proposed small church for the northeast corner of Alessandro and San Jacinto. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 Mr. Drell explained that this was an exploratory request by the applicant in order to get a feeling of whether they were moving in the right direction on a proposal to build a church at an Alessandro/San Jacinto location. He stated that this would finish off that cul-de-sac that the surgery center being built on the other side would do. Due to the diminutive size of the lot, it would not be possible to park it fully for a church use, they were proposing a 2,500 square foot building with ten parking spaces. Those ten parking spaces would fulfill the normal commercial office requirement during non assembly hours and would accommodate 30 seats in an auditorium. At some time they might have more than 30 members in the church and on Sunday morning there were a lot of spaces available on Alessandro. In addition they were trying to arrange with the dental office on Portola for some overflow parking. Realistically speaking people would probably park on Alessandro before they would park at Portola. If the congregation got to 50 or 60 attendees, they would need something like ten parking spaces on the street to accommodate that. The question at this point before they move ahead was if that sort of an arrangement was something that the Planning Commission would consider or if it was out of the question and they should look for another site. He said representatives were at the meeting to answer questions. Chairperson Lopez invited the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHARLES MARTIN, 73-733 Highway 111, stated that he is the architect. He said he currently is dealing with several religious groups. This applicant was an Ecumenical Catholic Church. He indicated that when they started talking about parking, one of the advantages the Ecumenical Catholics have is that they can have three or more masses a day on their holy day. What they had right now were ten parking spaces and a building that would sit within the envelope for what the City would require for height and distance setback, it has enough landscaping, and it had one existing tree they were going to try to save. The church also has an agreement with the doctor on the corner for an additional 16 parking spaces, so if they added the additional 16 spaces, that would allow them to seat 78 people and if they did three masses a day, there could be 214. It was a small church and wasn't going to grow like the Southwest Church of the Desert. He thought it was filling a nice niche. They didn't want a big facility. So it came into an infill situation. It came into a street which `"' 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 3 9 has sort of been left to the building of more cul-de-sacs. He thought the cul-de-sacs down the road should be rethought because that property could be landscaped between the two, the Fire Department could still have a break through there and the only person coming in to use the cul-de-sac was someone that was lost and if they were lost, they would turn around in a driveway. He personally believed that the cul-de-sac hurt this property. It didn't feel good in terms of having the surgery center and with all the money spent there just to have this blanket of asphalt and then try to come up with something that works. He said they added landscaping and there was a garden in the back, they have a stairway down and this building would be two-stories and the hall would be underground. They would spend the week or during the time they would be there, whether it would be the Vicar and/or Priest and possibly a volunteer or two, but during the day there would probably only be one or two people. They would mainly only use the lower floor which would stay cooler in the summer. The actual sanctuary was up above. With the building they would be doing more of a basilica type of roof in terms of the elevation and roof. He noted that he did the Newman Center for Father Ned, so it would be a soft, not a hard-edged building and would be easy in terms of its appearance. With parking, if they drove onto Alessandro on a Sunday off of Portola, there was no one parked on it. They were looking at the back end of the two-story building that has nothing to it where Kinko's used to be located. The church has the agreement with Dr. LeBlanc for the additional 16 parking spaces right now, so they basically had 26 spaces. He thought Father Ned could answer any questions about the growth or the size of the congregation. Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Martin was proposing the building and ten parking spaces in that small area where there was an existing parking lot which has asphalt on it. Mr. Martin concurred. Commissioner Campbell indicated that to the west the land was empty. She asked if Mr. Martin was using that vacant lot for anything or if they were only using that little area. f 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 Mr. Martin said that little area was the actual piece of property they were buying, minus what was being taken out for the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Campbell said there was home to the north of that. Mr. Martin concurred. Commissioner Campbell asked if the proposed building was going to be two stories. Mr. Martin said that if he stayed within the envelope of what they could do for a single story building on that piece of property, with the setbacks and working away from the single story building. He came right away to the Planning Department and asked what he could do. That building had been all over that lot and they really worked it around and finally came up with the current plan, which was the simplest way to do it. Commissioner Campbell asked what the height of the building would be. Mr. Martin said that the total top of the building might be 24 feet. The building comes up, then steps back and then has the clerestory and the basilica cap which runs the length of it in an east-west direction. It works itself away from Alessandro and away from the other house. If he put up a line of sight drawing for the house and did what single story could do, it would block the house. This didn't because it steps back further from it to allow more view. Commissioner Campbell said she looked at the property and it looked very small for a building and ten parking spaces. Mr. Drell said that the building footprint was only 1,200 or 1,300 square feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the capacity of the sanctuary would be. Mr. Martin said it would end up being what happened to them parking wise. They were just showing that they could build that square footage to park that if it were an office building. What happened now is that with the sanctuary, there were some other elements that go 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 a into the sanctuary. Right now he was showing the restrooms on the lower level and they have an elevator for anyone with a handicap. It would end up as meeting what they have to do when the parking was settled. Father Ned had 16 additional spaces down the street. That was what they had right now at Dr. LeBlanc's dentist office at the corner. Mr. Martin said they have a written agreement. FATHER NED REIDY, 73-850 Fairway in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He noted that they would also have a bike rack and he personally got around town on a bike. He would be a daily bike rider to the center along with a number of their other people. He said that he came before the commission in 1986 when they were fortunate to have Mr. Martin as their architect and they took over the old warehouse across the street from City Hall, the Newman Center. He stated that he served there 14 years and they have a good record there of past environmental behavior so anything that they would approve and Mr. Martin would do would be beautiful, simple, attractive and something that would lend to the culture of the city and the environment of that particular area and it would be in keeping with what a religious building was meant to be. Something that has a real sense of the sacred about it and something deeply beautiful. He said their community is inclusive. They are growing but he said they have a special touch for young adults being close to the college and their retreat work they do with their young adults, teens and others at Pathfinder Ranch in Garner Valley. They were really not into big numbers, but more into quality and leadership and community. He said they would work within the norms set upon them but they did have a drafted letter signed by Dr. LeBlanc that the 16 spaces he has he would make available to them, particularly on weekends because his office was not open then. Commissioner Campbell asked if all the services would be on Sunday. Father Reedy said they have a daily service at 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, which was a weekday service for a smaller number, usually about 10 people, and on Sundays there were two services and they could easily have three if there were any overflow parking problems. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 k.. Commissioner Campbell asked if it was like regular Catholic mass. Father Reidy concurred. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be any recreational activities for the youth. Father Reidy said it wouldn't be what Commissioner Campbell had in mind. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the church use was limited to the 26 parking spaces that have been procured at this time, if that would meet the congregation's needs. Father Reidy said he thought so. He drove past the proposed location on Sunday at around 6:00 p.m. and came south on Portola and was showing some folks the property and the vista between Portola and the Wise Athletic Club was open - there wasn't a car on either side of that street all the way virtually to San Pablo. Mr. Drell said that across the street behind the commercial building there was only one driveway and it was basically all continuous park-able curbing. Commissioner Campbell said she frequented that area of Alessandro when Kinko's used to be there and visits SubKing. She said there was no problem parking on Alessandro during the week as long as the congregation parked on Alessandro and not San Jacinto or San Juan. She didn't see any problem with the parking. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the church could live with a condition that no parking would be allowed on San Jacinto. Father Reidy said yes. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the parking agreement was long-term. `" 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 i Father Reidy said it was open ended. Dr. LeBlanc said he wasn't open on weekends and they would make their space available. It was in writing and Mr. Drell had a copy. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it was long term, 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years. Father Reidy said it might be for 500 years. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification that the location is actually the northwest corner and not the northeast corner. Mr. Drell concurred, although there would no longer be a corner there since it was being eliminated. Mr. Drell said he didn't think the commission needed to take any action, just express their opinion and thinking and then the church could make their own judgement as to whether it was worth proceeding based upon the commission's individual comments. Commissioner Tschopp stated that it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Anything more attractive then the back of the buildings on the other side of the street would improve the area. With not impacting the residential neighborhoods on San Jacinto and having parking that meets their needs, he thought it would be a nice addition to the area and compatible with the current uses. Commissioner Finerty concurred and liked the idea of a garden. Commissioner Campbell also concurred. She felt it would be a good addition to that area. Commissioner Jonathan said that conceptually it was wonderful. The obvious concern brought up was parking and ten spaces wouldn't be enough, so the 16 or more or what they could procure needed to be something really solid. For example if Dr. LeBlanc doesn't own his property and is leasing and there is three years left, that wouldn't work. There had to be some assurance that as the church is successful and as the congregation grows that they aren't creating a problem for their congregation or the neighborhood. That would be a central issue. With the other design issues, they have an experienced architect. He wasn't sure about 24 feet high if 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 f.w everything around there is single story or zoned for that, 24 feet was the two- story height limitation so they might be dealing with 16 feet with possible exceptions for tower elements. He wasn't sure, but those kinds of design issues would come up. So there was a little bit of a feeling that they were trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, but he would like to see it work and because conceptually it would be a wonderful addition. Chairperson Lopez concurred that it was a great concept and he fully supported it. He looked forward to having a formal proposal before the commission in the future. Action: None. B. Case No. TT 26562 Amendment#1 -AMERICAN REALTY TRUST, Applicant Request for approval of a one-year time extension 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 Cook Street and Portola Avenue, 74-500 Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Drell noted that the commission had the staff report. He didn't think anyone was all that enthusiastic about this. The applicant had a basic concern that he has an entitled property now and although he didn't necessarily want to build what his map says he can build, the applicant felt his lender would get a little heartburn if he lost the entitlement so he wanted to go from an entitlement to a new entitlement. The applicant made the City aware that he is prepared to record phase one of this map which essentially would extend the remaining phases for three years and has filed an application which has been deemed essentially complete. While he hasn't spent the money yet, he has shown that the plan has been prepared the plan so that he could make good on his desire to final and record that first phase. It looked like one way or another this map will be extended and the best altemative in terms of an extension would be to grant a one-year extension and not end up with a partially subdivided property and a three-year `" 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 r t { extension if he recorded the map. Mr. Drell recommended approval of a one- year time extension. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the commission extended it one year, if the applicant still had the option available to record the map. Mr. Drell said yes. They could be back here a year from now saying that if it wasn't extended the map will get recorded. Commissioner Tschopp said that this could conceptually go on in perpetuity. Mr. Drell said no, there was a limited number of extensions that could be requested. Under the current ordinance the applicant could request five years worth. The Map Act was very indecisive in terms of there being various sections in different spots that relate to extensions. As stated in the staff report, in the interim the property owner has expressed some desire and willingness to work with our General Plan process relative to creating this university village and hopefully they could get some design work done that would show how that would work and then they could find a buyer who was interested in implementing the plan. That would ultimately work for everyone. Unfortunately, they were somewhat constrained. There was some issue that if the General Plan was amended, right now the plan was still generally in conformance with the General Plan. Once the General Plan is amended, they wouldn't have that option of extending it. The City could not legally extend the map and the applicants would have no other choice but to record. He said it would not go into perpetuity, it was likely that next year there would be a new General Plan which would preclude them from extending the map. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it was staffs opinion that by extending the map one year, it would give them room to negotiate or work out other means. Mr. Drell said that hopefully they would be able to convince a buyer or find a buyer to take the property who wants to do something the City is more interested in seeing developed near the university than implement a country club plan. There were a limited number of alternatives and ultimately that is what they would have to do any way. If they were going to implement the General Plan, they were going to have to find someone who is willing to spend the money on the property and then do the design work to do something different. Chairperson Lopez asked if the applicant would like to address the commission. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 MR. BRIAN HARNICK, 45-025 Manitou Drive in Indian Wells, stated that he was speaking on behalf of American Realty Trust, Inc. He said that they were enthusiastic about the project. It was their position that they legally have the right to impose a three-year mandatory extension and what that meant was that they would record a final map and that would lock the City in and lock them in. What he wanted to do was thank the City Attorney and his office, staff, and the City Manager in particular because they approached them and said that there was maybe a win-win rather than just imposing this under the law. The message that he wanted to give the commission was that they were not looking to impose something, they wanted to see if they could work within the confines of the General Plan as it exists now. They wanted to do something that makes sense, wanted to work with City and wanted to make this a successful project because if it was successful the city wins and they win. That was why they suggested approaching it a different way and if there was a win-win scenario. The win-win scenario was rather than having a three-year extension with a final reap recorded with a partial subdivision in place with a phase already in place and they were locked in, by asking the commission for a discretionary extension for one year they all had greater flexibility and that was what they were looking for. They were not looking to ram anything down, it wasn't a poker game or an ace up their sleeve, it was just something that the law said that they could do. He believed that there was a ten-year parameter and this did not go on in perpetuity. But this was what they had now and they were looking for a one-year extension because they thought it gave the City flexibility, it gave them the ability to work with the City, and made this a viable project either by them, or if another buyer came along and it worked out with the buyer. That was what they were looking to do and why they wanted the commission's consideration in a question of fairness and in creating a win-win scenario which the City Attorney and City staff wanted to accomplish. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell noted that the applicant withdrew the time extension request on July 17 and then resubmitted it. She asked why. Mr. Harnick said that under the law, the map has a termination date and when an applicant requests an extension of that map before it `" 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 5 t 1 expires, there is an automatic 60-day extension of that map or action by the advisory agency, in this instance the Planning Commission. Had the commission acted at the last hearing and denied the application, it would have forced them to proceed with the recordation of the final map and would have locked them in. By them withdrawing the application at that time and resubmitting it, it gave them a window of time to meet and confer with the City Attorney and with City staff to work out a win-win scenario. So they did that to buy an additional 30 days to keep the map in place until action by the City on approval. It was to buy them additional time to work out a solution. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan said that he was initially opposed to the extension for appropriate reasons. However, he was persuaded by staffs recommendation and by the applicant's explanation that this is perhaps the most productive method for proceeding. He hoped they were creating an opportunity for developments to occur that would result in the best possible outcome for the city, the applicant and for everyone concerned. It seemed J like a positive step and a potentially constructive step to undertake and he was in favor of a one-year extension. Commissioner Campbell agreed with the staff recommendation. They would rather have a one-year extension than recordation of phase one and have them stuck with it. Even though she was against it at the last meeting, she was now in favor. Commissioner Tschopp said he was also opposed initially, but hoped that the parties could within the next year come to some agreement because Cal State was happening, the north plan was happening and it would be nice to have compatible uses. Commissioner Finerty said she would have liked to have seen the reason why it was withdrawn at the July 17 meeting so that they understood at that time what would be coming down the pipe at a later date. Chairperson Lopez said that initially he was opposed but had been persuaded. He thought it was something they should take a look at. One 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 question he had for Mr. Hargreaves was if there was any exposure on this from a legal standpoint. Mr. Hargreaves said no. If the commission approved it, it was an extension. If the commission denied it, then the final map could be recorded and there would be an automatic three-year extension. It was just a matter of which path the commission wanted to head down. He didn't know that anyone was threatening litigation at this point. Mr. Drell said there would be no need for it. Chairperson Lopez said that he would support the extension and called for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving a one-year time extension of TT 26562 Amendment#1 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Jonathan stated that while they were under Miscellaneous and not directed at this particular application, it concerned him that they have something that gets approved literally more than ten years ago and wished it wasn't that way because things change. He hoped they wouldn't run into that too often. Things change in ten years as evidenced here. Mr. Drell said that it wasn't very long ago that they would have ever foreseen that they wouldn't be supportive of building a country club. That was a new idea that has only come into the city's psyche in the last six months to a certain degree, since they started the General Plan discussion. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it was a State law that granted ten years. Mr. Drell said yes, it was through the Subdivision Map Act. He noted that the applicant first foresaw the application expiring and in 1998 they processed a new map to start the clock over again. In 1998 it still hadn't dawned on them that they might want to stop someone from building a golf course. Commissioner Tschopp asked if this applied to any commercial building or residential development or if there was a certain size limit this applied to. Mr. Drell explained that these extensions are purely discretionary on the part of the City. The City was not forced to ever approve an extension. If when the project is alive, the applicant has the opportunity to execute it before it expires. He said the answer to that was to never approve a project that they didn't want to get built. They had to assume after it was approved the first time that it was going to be built_ If they extended it a second time, it could get built. Mr. Hargreaves said that there were ways to cut projects off by "" 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 changing ordinances and imposing moratoriums even if they have been approved, if the developer did not have a development agreement, vested tentative map or has not expended a certain amount and it wasn't a clearly defined amount in the furtherance of his project and all he has is a paper entitlement, he has no vested right to go forward and the City could change the rules of the game on them and they would be stuck. Mr. Drell noted that their representative from Sunline was on a time constraint and asked for the opportunity to give her presentation. C. Discussion of Bus Shelter Program Mr. Drell noted that the commission had questions and they wanted to hear how and why bus shelter decisions got made. MS. FRANKIE RIDDLE, 44-805 San Clemente Circle in Palm Desert, stated that she works for the City of Palm Desert. She asked for any specific questions. She informed the commission that she could answer the questions relating to the City's Bus Shelter Improvement Program and specific criteria on locations. She said she worked with Sunline and the Sunline representative was better equipped to answer specific criteria for location of spots. Commissioner Campbell asked how the next bus shelters would be designed. She asked if they would be designed like the one in front of Mr. Bartlett's building at Portola and Highway 111. Or if that was the only exception. Ms. Riddle explained that for developer bus shelters, the only criteria that was set was that it blend with the architecture of the building or the surrounding architecture. Established dimensions were based on Sunline's standards, but they could do something larger or better. That was up to the developer. The basic requirement was that it blend with the architecture of the building. That was for developers. The City has its own bus shelter design that we are focusing on implementing along Highway 111 and those would be started in September. 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 Commissioner Jonathan asked what the planning process is that is undertaken for location of bus shelters and stops. Ms. Riddle said that for existing, it was not an issue because if they decided to put in a bus shelter, it would be under the City's Bus Shelter Program. They only focus on undeveloped areas for developers. Mr. Drell explained that the question is what the determining factor of where a bus stop is going to go. Once there is a bus stop, sooner or later there would be a shelter, so that wasn't the issue. The question was how it was determined where the stops would be. MS. LESLIE GROJEAN, 68-270 Hermosillo in Cathedral City, stated that she works for Sunline Transit as the Senior Transportation Analyst. She was in charge of the bus stops and the locations. She said she works with the different cities in conditioning with development that is going to happen as to where bus stops, bus turnouts and bus shelters would be placed. Basically the trip generator determined where the stop would be placed or where she would condition or where the city would condition for a bus stop to be placed. It was what was going to be built at a particular lot. Some places would have stops two or three mites apart and in other places every other block. It was basically the trip generator that would determine whether or not she would condition for something to be placed or constructed. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on the trip generator. Ms. Grojean stated that whether it was a mall, restaurant or an office building or medical building, apartment complex or residential, basically the stops she conditioned would be at the closest entrance, if it was a mid block stop instead of being closer to the intersection, it would be closer to the entrance to the housing tract, if it was an office complex it would be closer to the entrance or exit of that complex. It depended on what was being built. `" 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 Chairperson Lopez asked how a housing tract could request to get a bus stop in front of their location. Ms. Grojean explained that the cities send her their development plans. They were sent to them just like any utility company. They were on that checklist. Then she looked at the area and whether or not there is service in the area and if it is a two to five year plan because they are a government entity and their funding is dependent upon the money they get every year. She looks at when she conditions a project whether or not she feels or the Agency feels that there was going to be service in that area if they were not already there in a two to five-year period. If it was further out, what she usually recommended to the cities was that they might not want to build it at this time, but when the services come they would build it. It all depended upon the area. Sometimes they would build retention basins and then the turnout would be built at a later time. Commissioner Jonathan asked when Ms. Grojean recommended a location as a bus stop, she has done an analysis of need. He thought she called it a trip generator. Ms. Grojean said it depended on what he meant by analysis. She didn't do on/off counts if that was what he was talking about. She has worked for the agency 12 years and they depend on her expertise to know the area and what is being built there and then she works with the operations department and the supervisors there and with the city to determine whether or not they feel a bus turnout would benefit the area. If they had a high volume street and the bus stop right now blocks a lane of traffic, if there was a vacant lot where development was going in, the best thing to do was for her to condition for a turnout to get that bus out of that lane of traffic. That was the safest thing for everyone concerned. Commissioner Jonathan noted that was a benefit for the entire community. Ms. Grojean said that was correct, and that was what she looked at. Where the location is, what is there and what is around it. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 WAM Commissioner Jonathan said it wasn't necessarily just the particular project. Ms. Grojean said it was everything surrounding it. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a master plan. He noted that it comes up before the commission as an issue here and there and his thinking was that it would be easier if there was a master plan so that they would know what streets, particularly on the north side of Palm Desert as they are getting developed, and the commission recently had a project and there was discussion about which side of the street, and it got moved all the way over to the other side of Cook Street. Ms. Grojean asked what he meant by master plan. Commissioner Jonathan explained he meant a master plan of circulation, future routes, where she thought the demand would be. Ms. Grojean said they have a short-range transit plan, which is a seven-year plan that they work on. Back in 1994 they had to cut their services when there were funding cuts and they were still in the rebuilding stage and they had two more years to go before they could expand their services. Once that happened after two years, then they looked at where they could add services. This upcoming year the Line 50 just got an increase in service. It services the cities of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage. It was a one way route and was now bidirectional. They weren't able to add anything except they would be adding a leg on when the university opens. They would do a roundabout there. Anything in the city of Palm Desert they were probably looking two to five years off, but there were areas where they know there is a need. There was development going on all the way to Dinah Shore and that area and she hadn't conditioned for anything right now because she didn't know what would happen. It all depended upon funding. Last year they had another cut and they weren't able to add anything. Being a government amenity, it was give and take every year as to what would happen. Their biggest thing right now was vehicle procurement and that was where the majority of capital money was going. ` W 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 art Commissioner Jonathan indicated that meant it wasn't the commission's job to think ahead where the stops were required. Ms. Grojean was copied on projects as they come up and then she/Sunline gave her input. Ms. Grojean concurred. She said that the City of Palm Desert has been one of the best cities to work with. She has other cities she has a hard time getting the information from. Palm Desert has always been at the forefront in getting them the information so they could work with them and comment on them. Mr. Drell said that one thing they would try to do in the General Plan Circulation Element in conjunction with whatever changes happen in the General Plan, they would try to at least project a build out and say, once it is built out and if it builds out as the plan shows, what they project to be the transit demand and then ideally what sort of transit system they felt would work and be efficient. Getting back to the university, hopefully they could come up with a development pattern that would really work with transit, that would be efficient and pay for them to run it and have a 15 minute headway that people will jump on and they would have jammed buses and it would be a matter of how many buses they could put on. Hopefully through that analysis they would look a little farther ahead then five to seven years as a long term project. Ms. Grojean said they just work on what they called a short range transit plan. They work with CVAG and SCAG on a long term basis as far as transit needs. The pamphlet before the commission was hot off the presses and she hadn't even completed a lot of the stuff. She had to go in and add a paragraph or two on sidewalks because as nice as meandering sidewalks are, they weren't transit friendly. So she had to put something in there for developers, engineers and city officials and staff so that every 150 or 200 feet, the meandering sidewalk connected to the curb for ADA purposes. Someone in a wheelchair, walker or who had a cane would find it difficult to get across grass. She said she would also put in some pictures of different developer built shelters so people could get ideas of what a developer built shelter looks like and there were several throughout the valley. She indicated that Palm Desert just started theirs over at the northwest corner of Fred Waring and Monterey. It was the gentleman who built 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 r.. the building across from COD/McCallum. They have worked with the cities for quite a long time because the shelters out there are advertising shelters and the advertising helped to generate revenue to put up more shelters. She hadn't been able to go out and buy a shelter for probably four or five years. They didn't have the funds to do it. This is where they worked with the cities and developers to provide the amenity for the passengers. It was to have the developers build a shelter and she thought they looked much nicer. She said they were in it for the revenue. Commissioner Tschopp said that raised a question. If they were looking at a regional mall or large development, it was easy to see the traffic generated and the requirement for a bus stop. His question was on the smaller buildings like the south side of Highway 111 and Portola, the Baxley project, or the northwest corner of Monterey a nd Fred Waring, the Homme building, where bus shelters were put in. In his mind those were smaller buildings and yet if he understood the way it worked, those developers paid for those bus stops and it was pretty much coming down to Sunline saying that a bus stop is needed in this area. Ms. Grojean said they recommend. All they do is recommend. Commissioner Tschopp noted that Ms. Grojean recommended a bus stop in that area and then the City is saying this development would be the one to pay for it. He asked if there was any provision for allocating that out amongst the very small businesses. Mr. Drell said that was an equity question. It was no different than the requirement that forces people who were unfortunate enough to have power lines on their property to underground them. They didn't get a discount for electricity because they had power lines, but they were stuck with undergrounding them. The good news, at least for the Homme shelter, was that the City paid for half of it. Mainly because he built an extra big one. That was an equity question. Just because that was the most appropriate location for a bus stop that serves the whole area, why should that one property owner, who isn't the only beneficiary of the bus service, pay for the shelter. That wasn't really Ms. Grojean's call that was the City's call. She was pointing out the appropriate location for a bus shelter when we condition projects and when the City created its own bus shelter program that was the City's call of how they wanted to allocate the cost to '"' 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 d the various users. Right now it was easiest for them to hit the particular developer because he was the guy asking for an approval. Commissioner Jonathan said it kind of depended because when Mr. Drell said whose problem it was and whose responsibility it was because the equity is an issue and there is a perception that there isn't so much planning considerations that go into when and where shelters go in as much as, "here is someone who can pay for one, let's put one up." It wasn't just a friendly recommendation, it was basically that if someone wanted their project, here is a condition of approval - put up a bus shelter. They didn't care that the developer didn't want it, they didn't care that it would infringe on the property, they didn't care that the developer didn't need it or the neighborhood didn't need it, you will put it up and pay for it. That was a problem because ultimately he thought in the long run it defeated the purpose of a very very good objective which was to increase mass transit in this desert. Mr. Drell brought up the undergrounding issue, but very often they have had developers participate in an assessment district for undergrounding if one was formed. He asked if the City has ever considered a bus shelter assessment district so that equity was dispersed. Mr. Drell said yes, there was an idea floated to have a general assessment, in essence a general developer fee that all developers would pay. Commissioner Jonathan noted that was what TUMF did, that was what school mitigation fees did, so that equity is dispersed. Mr. Drell said it was to be based on everyone's access and use of the bus system. In order to do that a nexus study was required. For whatever reason, and it was a question only the people on the council could answer, he went to the council with a proposal to have a consultant do a study to show what would be an equitable fee and suddenly there was no support for it. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't understand that because he thought it would create a bigger pot and more shelters and a more enhanced public transit system. Mr. Drell said they wouldn't have to worry about burdening one property owner because to a certain degree the guy with the bus stop did get additional advantages because it was more convenient to him but he wasn't the only one served. But at least it would pay for some portion of it with a city fee, but that was a City Council call when the proposal came before them to investigate it and they weren't supportive. Mr. Hargreaves said there were certain legal constraints about the City's ability to impose those kinds of conditions on developers. If they got called to task, they would have to establish that the condition imposed 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 tow was roughly proportional to the impact that the developer generates. The reality was that most of the developers operate under time constraints and it was easier for them to go forward if they accepted the condition. Looking at it in a global sense, as long as the impositions were relatively evenly dispersed and some people got hit in some ways and other people in other ways, it all created a much better community which everyone benefited from and that was why property values were as good as they are in Palm Desert, because staff, Planning Commission and Council have been somewhat aggressive in making demands on developers. If they looked at other communities that have been less aggressive, they could see the results. People didn't like it but they went along with it in order to do business in Palm Desert because all the advantages that Palm Desert has was basically because the city has been aggressive in making these kinds of demands. Commission thanked Ms. Grojean for her input. Ms. Grojean informed commission that as soon as the completed pamphlet was done she would get them copies. She intended them for all cities' planning commissioners. Commissioner Jonathan said that he saw a lot of potential for enhancing the whole program which would result in more bus shelters and better strategically placed locations because this seemed like a valley wide effort and Sunline didn't just serve Palm Desert. He suggested to Ms. Riddle that this might be something that CVAG could look at along with Sunline and maybe even create a valley wide assessment district or each city create its own. Something that would disperse the financial burden and would result in a bigger pot and more bus shelters with more comprehensive planning in terms of where they go, when they go, what the priorities are, etc. If it came up, or if staff pushed for it again, or if it came up at council, he thought it was worthwhile. Ms. Riddle said sometimes it was timing and sometimes things could be changed. Once a program was implemented changes could be made later on. She said she understood where he was coming from. Commissioner Jonathan thanked Ms. Riddle for coming to the meeting. i"' 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 Commissioner Tschopp said if it was time for comments he would like to take it one step further. They run into instances like tonight where there were a couple of churches that might need a bus stop there because of what they would do, but because of lack of ground on the one church they would move it down the block to the next poor guy that would build, so the whole planning was very haphazard. Plus, it wasn't planned far enough in advance for a person to allocate that to his land. To him, if the city wanted to still be pro development, they should have that early in the development scheme. There were two things. The first was to get it earlier into the development scheme and the second was the real trip generator might not be putting in the bus stop because of lack of land and someone else down the street would have to pay for it. He noted that Mr. Drell mentioned telephone poles, but if he was a commercial builder and he bought a lot that has telephone poles, he knew that he would have to underground them. But if he bought a lot and looked down the street and didn't see any buses, he wouldn't think he had to put in a bus stop and to him the analogies didn't quite work. They ought to be able to tell someone that they were looking in an area for a bus stop and they might be caught. Commissioner Jonathan said it could be worse. There could be a bus stop half a block down so you figure it wouldn't be an issue. Commissioner Tschopp also noted that it was a cost. If economic times continued, it could at some point have some impact and be economically unfair for builders. The whole thing was so arbitrary and subjective and in his mind the program such as the Art in Public Places worked very well. If someone wanted to build a building, they pay 1% that goes into the program and it benefits everyone and he thought this program fell within that same line. He wanted to encourage the City to take a look at forward planning, allocating the cost amongst different developers and builders and get away more from the subjective and arbitrary process. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the commission wanted to leave it here or recommend to the City Council to consider alternatives. Commissioner Tschopp said that to enhance and streamline the development process and making it fair, he would like to recommend that the City Council take a look at studying this further, either through a committee or some other means. Commissioner Jonathan was in favor as well. Mr. Hargreaves indicated this was something that could be brought up in the General Plan process as one of the transportation mitigation measures establishment of the program. Mr. Drell said that as part of the Circulation Element there was going to 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 discussion of transit and how to deal with bus stops. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that Council might want to send it to that particular committee. Mr. Drell said that the Planning Commission could send it to them. Commissioner Jonathan thought it should be recommended. Commission concurred. Mr. Drell said that they could make a motion that this issue be addressed in the Circulation Element. Action: It was moved Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson Lopez, recommending to City Council that bus shelters be addressed in the Circulation Element of the General Plan as part of the General Plan Update. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (July 18, 2001) ,r Commissioner Campbell stated that the meeting was informational only. She noted that they wanted to see what would be in the General Plan before they do any further studies of where to place art. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (July 24 and August 21, 2001) Commissioner Finerty said that the meeting today was informational only. Mr. Drell indicated that they looked at the proposed trellis cover over the Civic Center atrium. The goal was to create a covered usable plaza area for people to have functions in and presentations as opposed to just having a corridor. F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) ''� 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 a G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) Xl. COMMENTS Chairperson Lopez noted that he addressed the letter of July 19 regarding the Desert Sands and the Palm Springs Unified School Districts. One went to Doris Wilson and one to Dr. Dietrich. He informed commission that he received a call from Doris Wilson and the process was quite lengthy, but what used to be impossible could now be done by resolution through the City Council. It used to be that they had to have a petition by residents and letters from vacant land owners in order to push a petition to the County Board of Education. Now the City could move forward through a new educational code, Code 35720 and 35724 and it said that on receipt of a resolution approved by a majority of the members of the City Council, County Board of Supervisors, a governing body of a special district or a local agency formation commission that has jurisdiction over all or a portion of the school district for consideration of unification or other reorganization of any area, the County Committee shall hold a public hearing on the proposal at a regular or special meeting. Sharon Topham with the Governmental Relations and Support Services for the Riverside County Office of Education sent Chairperson Lopez a flow chart and directions on how we could proceed with this. Mr. Drell said that the process sounded the same, the difference was that the City could now initiate it. They still had the same issues of successfully getting it done. He had also put in a call to the Facilities Planner for Palm Springs to start discussing with them the city's new plans for the north area and the substance would be that it wouldn't be the cash generator they thought it would be and there would be a lot of students there that they would have to provide educational services for and it might not necessarily be financially to their benefit to hold onto it. Chairperson Lopez noted that in the letter the commission requested cooperation to adjust the boundaries. He relayed the comment that when Ms. Wilson talked to Dr. Dietdch's office and spoke with him, he said it wasn't going to happen. Mr. Drell said they weren't yet aware about the General Plan update. In the past this area has been a pure revenue generator for them without providing educational facilities. He 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001 ..w thought that attitude might change. Chairperson Lopez passed along the information he received for future use. He noted that the process might be a little easier, but getting the results would be as difficult as ever. Commissioner Jonathan thanked Chairperson Lopez for doing that. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m. C PHIL DRELL, ecretary A EST: JIM EZ, Chrin)Commission n Pa esert Plan /t 41