Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0115 �1��� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JANUARY 15, 2002 �.. � 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER .� . 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE �. * � � � � � �. * .� � � * ,� � � � .� �. .� � .� * � � � * � .� �. �. � �. .� * � � � .� � .� I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. 111. 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 Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the December 4, 2001 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the December 4, 2001 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-O. �i.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 i # � V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent December 13, 2001 and January 10, 2002 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 01-31 - CARL VOCE, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow consolidation of 5 lots into 2 for property located on Alessandro between San Pascual and San Juan. ; B. Case No. PMW 01-33 - J. WALTERS CONSTRUCTION � COMPANY, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust a lot line to conform with building area on property located east of Miriam Way. C. Case No. PP/CUP 99-7 - PEARL DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a one-year time extension of a precise plan/conditional use permit for a 250-unit continuing care retirement (age 62 and older) community on 10.3 acres on the west side of Fairhaven Drive south of Parkview Drive. D. Case No. PMW 01-15 BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and BURGER FAMILY TRUST, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment to expand a residential lot for property 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 � described as Lot 8 of Tract 25296-5 and Lots E, F and G of Tract 25296-7 in the Canyons at Bighorn. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving all four Consent Calendar items by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 01-18 - KENNY AND DONNA LUCKEROTH, Applicant �.. Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 3,138 square foot 1 6-foot high detached accessory building in the rear yard of the property located at 77-555 Delaware Place. Mr. Bagato explained that the applicant was seeking approval of a conditional use permit to allow a detached structure within their required rear yard setback. The property is located on Delaware Street just east of Warner Trail. Mr. Bagato explained that the property is zoned RE, residential estates, 40,000 square foot minimum lot sizes. The surrounding properties are also zoned RE. He indicated that the required setbacks in this district are 50 feet for the rear yard and 15 feet for the sides. Per Section 25.56.280 in the General Provisions, an applicant can request a detached accessory building through a conditional use permit with a maximum height of 18 feet. Mr. Bagato explained that the height of the proposed structure is 16 feet. Mr. Bagato stated that the proposal meets all the standards of the detached accessory conditions. Mr. Bagato explained that the building would be designed with a stucco finish and tile roof to match the existing home. Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval on December 1 1 , 2001 with some revisions. `.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 � The revised drawings were included with the staff report and meet those requirements. The applicant also made some additional changes to improve the look of the building. He noted that the legal notices were sent out as required. A letter was received from the neighbor to the east with the vacant property. He was requesting that the common property line be surveyed. Mr. Bagato said that a precise grading plan was a requirement and the Public Works Department already had that as a condition of approval. Third, he was requesting that a six foot high concrete block wall be placed where there is an existing chain link fence. Staff felt that if the chain link needed to be replaced, it could be replaced with a wood fence. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Bagato to circulate the original pictures that were submitted with the letter. Mr. Bagato did so and reiterated that the structure as proposed would meet all the standards and with the conditions of approval, recommended approval. He also noted that the project is a Class 3 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes and recommended approval of CUP 01-18. Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Bagato said the structure would be located on the west side of the lot, but the staff report said east. Mr. Bagato confirmed it was on the east side. Commissioner Jonathan addressed the letter from D & F Development. He indicated the first issue is a common property line to be established and asked if that was an issue for the City to address as part of the application process or if that was a private matter between property owners. Mr. Bagato said he talked to several departments today and it was his understanding that if there is a dispute and the Building Department has a hard time determining where it should be from the required property line, that the commission could make it a condition to have the property surveyed. It was not required as part of the precise grading plan and it wasn't required by the Building Department unless there is a dispute either by the property owners or by the Building & Safety Department. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the potentialty disputed property line impacts the setback requirement. Mr. Bagato said it could if the property line was off by a lot. Then they could run into trouble. Commissioner Jonathan noted that would be part of the basis for making that part of the conditions of approval. They needed to have confidence that the setback requirement has been met. Commissioner � Jonathan said that with the grading plan, it looked like that there could 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 � � be a drainage issue. He thought that was a valid issue, but it didn't strike him as being an issue for this particular application which is a CUP to allow a detached accessory building. Mr. Bagato said there was already a condition under the Department of Public Works saying they have to provide a precise grading plan before they will be issued a building permit. Even if it wasn't required by the CUP tonight and they were building within their building envelope, they would still be required to provide a precise grading plan because of the size of the lots and the drainage issues out there. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was staff's recommendation that a wood fence be constructed. Mr. Bagato said that staff recommended that if they were going to approve this building, the clean up of the lot be done. The other issue that comes into play once the grading plan has been done is, they might be required to put in a retaining wall and it might be a cost benefit at that time to build a block wall, but staff wasn't going to know that until the grading plan was done. Right now to meet current standards the fence could be wood. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the staff recommendation is fencing that complies with the minimum requirements and if a retaining wall is � required, then it would meet or exceed the requirement. If it isn't, the minimum requirement that the City would impose could be a wood fence. He said he hoped it wouldn't be a chain link fence. Mr. Bagato said chain link would be nonconforming. Chairperson Lopez noted that in that particular residenfiial area, there were several yards surrounded by chain link fences. Mr. Bagato indicated that it is an older neighborhood so there are a lot of nonconforming things in that part of town. Chairperson Lopez Qpened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. KENNY and DONNA LUCKEROTH, 77-555 Delaware Place, addressed the commission and stated that Mr. Bagato did a great job with the presentation. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they understood the potential requirements that might be placed on the application and permit in te�ms of grading and the lot line. � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 � Mr. Luckeroth said that Mr. Bagato went over that with them as far as having a detailed engineered grading plan which is apparently required every time for a building of that size. Commissioner Jonathan noted that depending on drainage issues it may necessitate different levels of fencing. Mr. Luckeroth said he didn't really see that as a problem because with the amount of property they have they could build swells and make a retaining basin far enough away from the property line. The problem is the property next door is about four feet lower, although their pad height is even, but the back part of the lot is down. He would definitely take that into consideration to retain all the water. Commissioner Jonathan said that if they do retain all the water, at minimum there might be wooden fencing required. Mr. Luckeroth said it was in their plans to do a nice wall on the � property. It was just priorities and they wanted to get the garage up because they had a lot of things to get out of storage and into their own new storage area. Chairperson Lopez noted that the building was going to be used for storage, but he noticed one section was to be a game room or something like that and asked for clarification on its use. Mrs. Luckeroth said it was basically a bonus room and would be used to store weather sensitive items, probably furniture like a pool table. Commissioner Campbell said it didn't look like the east side of the home was as wide as the west side for a driveway. Mrs. Luckeroth stated that the driveway was actually on the west side of their property. Mr. Luckeroth said that the driveway was already going down the west side. S 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 � Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that there was no driveway on the east whatsoever. The applicants concurred. Mrs. Luckeroth said there was plenty of room. Commissioner Campbell said she noticed the large driveway on the west and had been wondering why they were going to have one on the east which didn't seem wide enough. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. RICK CLARK of 77-590 Mountain View in Palm Desert, stated that he was in complete favor of the project. The garage that was going to be built would back up to houses that have been there since before city annexation. He said his own back structure is ten feet from the property line and the house directly to the south of ,� the proposed project is ten feet from the property. So he had no problem at all with the proposed structure being within that 50- foot boundary. MR. FRANZ TIERRE, 46-333 Burroweed in Palm Desert, informed the commission that he owns and manages the lot which is just to the east of the applicant's property. He had three concerns about this addition. One, it is a large addition as an accessory building. And although it has a good design to it, it has a bit of an industrial look or a business type (ook. He wasn't rejecting it or turning it down, but he had three concerns he wanted the commission to consider. One, he would like the applicant to have the boundary line between the two properties established or reestablished by a licensed surveyor. He thought it was important to both of them. He wanted that to be a condition of approval. He said he also submitted photographs. Chairperson Lopez confirmed that the commission received the photographs along with a copy of Mr. Tierre's letter. � 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 i � Mr. Tierre said that the drainage from the applicant's lot to their lot was a concern. Several years ago he got a grading permit for his lot and he knew that it was difficult to get 100 year storm retained on a property if it is covered with a lot of buildings and driveways. One of the other conditions he would like is for the applicant to produce a grading drawing that will show that the storm water meets the city criteria and can be retained on the property. With more building on the property, the retention area is considerably less than before and that was a big drainage concern. He said he would also like to see if the Planning Commission would recommend a block wall between the two properties from the rear lot line up to the existing block wall. That was about 120 feet. One reason was that the precise grading plan would show that there had to be a retaining wall in that area in order for the surface water to be retained on the property. He had been told that the city doesn't require anything more than a wood fence, but in this instance based on the fact that the owner is creating large buildings, that would help visually from their side and also benefit � the applicant. He couldn't imagine the applicant wanting to build a 550,000 building and having a wood fence. But his biggest concern was the drainage. Chairperson Lopez explained that there had already been some discussion about those three items. He asked if there was a concern on his part as an adjacent property owner that the lot line is incorrect. Mr. Tierre said that was correct. He didn't know. Chairperson Lopez noted that the commission might add that as a condition. Most of the time it wasn't required unless there was a dispute between homeowners as to the accuracy of the lot line. Mr. Tierre said he would go on record that he doesn't know where the property line is. Chairperson Lopez stated that the second item, the grading plan, was already part of the Public Works conditions of approval. A precise grading plan had to be submitted prior to any permits being issued. The third item was that if indeed the grading plan requires that there be a fence or 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 �r.. structure between the properties, and if there needed to be a retaining wall, that would be conditioned. If there wasn't, the minimum that would be required was a wood fence. That would be determined by the grading plan. Mr. Tierre commented that whoever designed the building did a good job. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell said that after reviewing the staff report, the proposed project would meet all the requirements for the setbacks. Architectural Review granted approval for the revised plans at their December meeting and the applicant would conform with all the necessary engineering requirements. She moved for approval. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would second that motion based � upon adding a condition to establish the location of the common property line. To go one step further, once the condition was met with regard to the precise grading plan, that they have appropriate fencing at that time. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the conditions of approval require a grading plan (Public Works Condition No. 1 ). He asked if a grading plan required a property line distinction. Mr. Bagato said no, it was not necessary for a precise grading plan. Commissioner Jonathan thought the grading plan was appropriate as recommended by staff. If there is a retaining wail required, that would be appropriate and he assumed staff had the ability to impose that. If the property line is an issue between two property owners, and he wasn't sure it was being disputed, but if it is it seemed to him that it shouldn't be solely up to the applicant. A property line goes between two properties and he asked if both property owners would participate in the cost. He thought it was a private matter and if the other owner disputed it, he had other remedies available to him. He didn't think it was appropriate for the commission to get involved in that issue since staff was saying to them it wasn't an issue. Commissioner Finerty said that they know fencing is going to be required and generally it could be assumed the fencing would go somewhere near �.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 � � � �I that property line. Chairperson Lopez commented that it would go there or where the current fencing is located. Commissioner Fine�ty thought it seemed if they were requiring some sort of fencing, whether it be a block wall or wood, the location would still have to be identified. She understood Commissioner Jonathan's point about it being a private matter, but it sounded like it would need some type of fencing regardless. Mr. Drell noted that a lot of fences do get put up without a survey. He was also curious about how the Building Department makes those determinations. Surveys were a significant expense depending where they have to survey from. Unless there was evidence of some dispute, what people usually do when they build a fence and there is some uncertainty they usually push the fence a foot in to make sure, but again, the fence would benefit both property owners. It probably would be appropriate for the cost of the survey to be shared since it obviously benefits both properties. Commissioner Jonathan thought that might be solution. If he was the applicant, he would want a survey to determine once and for all where the property line runs, but he didn't know if they had the ability to impose it. Commissioner Finerty asked if somehaw Building Department would determine where the proper place is for the � fencing. Mr. Drell said that if they think the property line is evident by the "'� existing improvements, they go with that. Commissioner Finerty asked if they could put in the hands of the Building Department. Mr. Drell said they could. He asked if Mr. Tierre knew the price of a survey. Mr. Tierre spoke from the audience and said he wasn't sure, but he thought they were 5300 to S500. Mr. Drell said that if it was that important to Mr. Tierre, then maybe he would be interested in paying half of it and the commission could place a condition that the applicant offer to pay half of the survey and then it would be up to Mr. Tierre if he felt strongly enough he could pay half. It wasn't a common practice, although it wasn't a bad idea. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that these property owners have owned their properties for many years and asked why now all of a sudden there was a need to have a licensed surveyor to survey the property just because of a new wall. � 3 , � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 `.. Commissioner Tschopp commented that before anyone puts up anything of value on their property they usually want to make sure where they are putting it. That is the first rule of building. But he didn't think it was Planning Commission's responsibility to make certain that the owner is putting it on his property. If they were to impose this condition on this applicant where there is no dispute, they would need to do this on every applicant that came forward that would build something. He was opposed to adding any condition on this application for that reason. At the same time, if they are building something of value, it would behoove the applicant to talk to a title company and perhaps make certain that what is being built is on the applicant's property. Commissioner Campbell said that was why when she made her motion that she stated that the applicant needed to conform with all the necessary engineering requirements which would answer all of these questions. Commissioner Jonathan thought that although Commissioner Tschopp thinks it is a good idea for the applicant to be certain where the property begins and ends, it isn't the commission's role to impose that � condition. He agreed with that. His concern was that surveys can cost a few hundred dollars, but under certain circumstances which are not too unusual they can be substantially more than that, so it was an open- ended requirement. He would be more comfortable approving the application without that restriction since it is a matter between two private property owners. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said he agreed with all of the comments and hoped that the applicants heard them as well. They certainly wouldn't want to create something of value only to find out that it is in the wrong place. Chairperson Lopez also agreed. He wanted to see this project approved without having a financial burden on the applicant based on the need for a survey. If there is some concern or a dispute between individuals, then they should share in the cost of that survey. He didn't think it was in Planning Commission's best interests to condition that to the applicant solely. He asked for clarification of the motion. Commissioner Campbell said that it wasn't included in her motion. Mr. Drell asked if it included the requirement for conforming fencing. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Commissioner Finerty stated that she � 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 + would drop adding a survey for the property line but add appropriate fencing when the grading issue is dealt with. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting 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. 2107 approving Case No. CUP 01-18, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. PP 01-26 - LEWIS BISHOP FOR MARC'S GOLF, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 3,794 square foot retail commercial building on the north side of Highway 111 , 500 +/- feet west of Las Palmas Avenue, 73-330 Highway 1 11 . Mr. Smith noted that the colored site plan on display was slightly different from the one distributed to the commission in their packets. It had been updated to reflect the 1 1 parking spaces on the lot itself. The property is a flat, vacant rectangular shaped piece of property 60 feet by 134 feet. It fronts on the north frontage road. The applicant also owns the parcel on the north side of the alley. The project is an infill situation between two existing buildings and this is one of the last remaining vacant properties on the north side of the highway. He explained that Planning Commission was being asked to approve a two-story 3,794 square foot retail building. Marc's Golf will occupy the west portion of the first floor and will use the second floor for storage. The first floor will be divided with a four and a half foot wide walkway that runs from front to rear. The area to the east of the walkway would be for a second retail user. A building of this siie has a required parking for 15 cars. This property has 1 1 spaces. He noted that the applicant owns the property on the north side of the alley which is a 70 by 120-foot lot. The Palma Village Specific Plan calls for the lots on the side of the alley to become ' a large common parking area in the future with the north ends of those 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 `.. lots being landscaped to a depth of approximately 20 feet to provide for an appropriate transition to the residential uses to the north. Staff recommended approval of the application subject to the applicant granting to the City an irrevocable public parking easement on the north lot allowing for the future construction of the public parking lot. A proposed parking lot layout attached to the staff report showed 18 parking spaces on the north lot. He thought that might be a bit ambitious. Fourteen would be more likely when they provide connections to the east and west. In any event, they could easily achieve the additional four parking spaces. Conditions providing for the two scenarios were included in the draft resolution. He stated that Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval of the architecture. Today a petition signed by 1 1 people who live on San Benito Circle was received. It said that the property owners and residents oppose the vacant lot between the alley and San Benito north of the proposed building site to be used as a public parking lot. It would depreciate and unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of the property in the vicinity. The project would endanger the public peace, health, safety and general welfare. He believed copies ` of the petition had been distributed to the commission prior to the meeting. He noted that for many years the Palma Village Specific Plan has called for the parking lot to be eventually created on the north side of the alley. He thought there might some people who would want to speak to that issue. He asked for any questions. Mr. Drell emphasized that at this time staff was not recommending development of that lot. The strategy they hoped would ultimately be employed would be a consistent, continuous development of parking and not isolated lots surrounded by continuing residential uses, which is why given this use they were not recommending that this lot be developed at this time. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification. The applicant was asking for the construction of his building. The City was asking for the easement for the potential use of that lot in the back in the future. Mr. Drell said that was correct and it was in lieu of requiring the applicant to build four more spaces. Mr. Smith said that in the conditions of approval they were limiting his use at this time to the storage on the second floor and the use of the westerly portion as a golf shop which staff felt comfortable that the parking would be adequate for the use as conditioned. �. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 � Commissioner Jonathan said that in condition number ten, if the use changes, the applicant could pay for imp�oving the north parking lot to add the four spaces. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Or if he wanted to add more to the building, he would have to create six or eight parking spaces and access to the adjacent lots to the east and west. Commissioner Tschopp noted that in the presentation the project showed 11 required parking spaces now, but on the plan he counted 14. He asked for clarification. Mr. Smith explained that the colored version on display was back to 11 with the required landscaping in it that was missing. Chairperson Lopez asked if the applicant moved ahead and utilized additional space which required additional parking across the alley. He asked where the landscaping of the 20 feet into the residential area would become an issue. Mr. Smith said that the drawing showed a meandering five foot block wall with landscaping below it. Part of the Palma Village Specific Plan was that the northerly end of those lots, 20 ' feet, would be landscaped so that it would fit in with the remaining � residential community. Chairperson Lopez asked if that would automatically be done. Mr. Drell said that either that lot gets developed or it doesn't. If it gets developed with just four spaces that backed right out onto the alley or just took up the first 20 feet of it, they would expect the rest of the lot to be landscaped in some fashion so the neighborhood wouldn't have to look at it as an empty lot. They would expect any development of that lot to be developed with parking and landscaping at whatever ratio that is appropriate. Chai�person Lopez asked who would bear the cost of that. Mr. Drell said that if the property owners proceed with the changes to expand the business before the City does a lot, it would be at the applicant's cost. Commissioner Campbell had a question on Condition Number 12 regarding creating minimum alley widths of 24 feet. She asked what the alley width is right now. Mr. Smith said it is 20 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant would be required to widen it four feet. If he isn't using the north parking lot it could remain as is, but if he does use it, then he needs to widen it four feet. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mr. Drell said that otherwise the applicant would dedicate it and ' as part of this whole plan the City would hopefully widen the whole alley 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 � and make it conforming. It was getting the City the right-of-way so that if the City does it, they would have the ability to widen the alley. Commissioner Jonathan said that regardless of who ends up building on it first, whether the City proceeds with construction of the lot or whether it was the applicant, there would be at least four spaces. He asked if in either event it would be a public parking lot. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Logically speaking with the proximity to his use, he would gain the most benefit from it. Commissioner Jonathan said the most proximate businesses on the north side of the frontage road were the candidates for using it for employee parking. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Campbell said it would be similar to Presidents Plaza East and West. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. LOUIS BISHOP of 44-645 San Onofre Avenue in Palm Desert ` addressed the commission. He noted that this had been an interesting project to work on. It was rather straightforward in nature, so consequently some hoops were created by the City and there were some ideas about expanding the parking and the ability of the neighborhood to grow in commercial use. In response to the inquiring regarding the number of parking spaces, they conform to the number of uses, but the Architectural Review Committee and Planning Director determined that they didn't have enough landscaping in the back. So they lost some parking spaces and that created a need for parking across the alley and negotiations about what happens when the City would like to improve the parking areas behind the businesses that are on the north frontage road. He thought the remarks about Presidents Plaza were appropriate because that is the kind of commercial entity they see as the growth in that area along the north frontage road. The conditions as outlined by the staff and by all the various departments appeared to be appropriate to the construction of the building. They didn't have much to say about the restriction except for the storage restriction. They could live with that on a temporary basis. The actual use of the second floor if they were familiar with Marc's Golf, a large portion of their business was � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 devoted to club fitting and the club fitting area was designated as on the second floor. They called it storage for convenience purposes, but it had a very large netting that they use to fit the clubs. It was equivalent to storage with virtually no one there unless there was a single individual being fitted for clubs upstairs. No one else was allowed up there. The rest of the area on the second level was devoted to storage. With that and with the recommendation of the Architectural Review Committee to provide some additional articulation and some mechanical equipment screening and a few other minor items, they were fine with the way the project is going and he hoped to proceed. Commissioner Campbell said that on the alley side, they would have more landscaping than anyone else on that alley. Mr. Bishop said he was glad she noticed that because he did have some discussion about that with the landscape department, the Public Works people, and Planning Department and they would a have some very nice landscaping on the back of the property. � Commissioner Jonathan complimented Mr. Bishop on the design. He thought it was very attractive and that they had done a good job with it. He asked if the putting green would stay in. Mr. Bishop said yes and explained that it was an artificial turf putting green. He stated that golf players like to have the opportunity to try out the clubs a little bit. They have about a 15- toot short put on the front section. He thought the grade was a little tough because the property between the north frontage road and the alley drops about two and a half feet so they have to stay up in order to comply with ADA in the front and that meant a big ramp in the back and the loss of a parking space. But the putting green out front would be kind of fun and there would be some articulation. Commissioner Jonathan thought it would be a nice part of the overall design. Regarding the north parking lot, he said he might be interested in exploring some restrictions if and when it gets developed in terms of hours of operation because they didn't want to impose on the residential 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 � neighborhood in the rear. Those were issues they had run into before and he assumed that reasonable restrictions would be acceptable. Mr. Bishop said absolutely. He stated that Marc's business generally ran from about 9:30 a.m. until not past 6:00 p.m. even on a good day. Not knowing what kind of a tenant that might occupy the other piece, it was a small enough space that he didn't think there would be any problem there. Commissioner Tschopp agreed that the architecture was very nice. He did have a question about the signage. Given the type of architecture, he asked if Mr. Bishop saw any problem meeting the sign codes or if he anticipated coming back later for variances given the arch design. Mr. Bishop said it would be a problem and compared it to a project constructed by Mike Homme in Rancho Mirage behind the Comfort Inn. It was a little office project in the back. One of the things they looked at was graphics relating to Santa Fe style or southwestern � style architecture. They had painted signs and he didn't anticipate coming back at any time for anything unusual. Most of the signage they were looking at would be non-illuminated except for building illumination. One thing they did have was a piece of sculpture to go behind the large window. MGS has a piece of sculpture sitting in their business now on the south side of Highway 1 1 1 and that same piece would go three feet behind the glass. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there are a couple of buildings on Monterey that have a southwest design with signs painted on the buildings. Mr. Bishop said that was the character they thought was appropriate and it gave the kind of comfort level for this kind of business. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. DONNA MATSON addressed the commission. She stated that her family has owned the property at 73-341 San Benito Circle for �.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 � about 30 years. For many years they rented it and now it was going to be owner occupied. They had enough with renting to tenants where they spend a year cleaning up. She said they reviewed the design of Marc's Golf Shop and was very pleased that it was going to be a low traffic business, but enough traffic to be successful, but basically low traffic. Not a massage parlor, not a restaurant, but a golf shop with a very nice clientele. They were pleased with the design, the layout and with the clientele and the neighbors supported that. What they did not support is putting a public parking lot right in the middle of their neighborhood. (She distributed a plan showing the location of the lots in the area.) She stated that San Benito Circle, the south part of it, has 16 residents. Of those 16, she met and talked with 1 1 . Most of the 16 were now owner occupied. As far as she knew, there were only two rentals in this whole area and one was by a teacher and her husband who was in the high tech business. She pointed out the location of her house which was adjacent to the vacant lot. She identified the area for the public parking area. If they had a � setback from San Benito of 20 feet that meant the public parking � with people from the Red Barn, the Irish Pub, etc., pulling in and out of there until 2:00 a.m. The headlights and cars would come into that parking lot within five feet of her bedroom. Her second bedroom would also be hit by the lights and the traffic. A public parking lot did not seem appropriate in their neighborhood. The other area she identified was the other vacant lot. They only have two vacant lots in their cul-de-sac. One belongs to the City and the other one is the one that is being discussed for additional parking in case it is needed. This condition resulted from a 1984 and 1987 community plan when that whole strip was going to be made available for commercial parking to support the commercial buildings on Highway 1 1 1 . For 17 years they have been sitting with this hanging over their heads. She didn't know if her house was going to be demolished or taken by public domain. Within the last few years two new houses, one this summer and one last summer, had been built on this street. One three lots over from the parking lot and one almost directly across the street. When she spoke to them they had no idea what might happen to that vacant lot. Only two of them on the street received the notice. No one � else received it. She said that apparently it went out for the � � 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 � commercial part, but not concerning the vacant lot that might become a public parking lot. She showed the commission pictures of some of the houses on her street and pointed out their landscaping. She also showed pictures of the commercial buildings with parking lots in the back. She also showed a picture of the parking lot the City approved a couple of years ago and the area north of the alley. She said this was what they wanted to do to their neighborhood and showed pictures of the lots which were littered with trash, debris, traffic, and a run down fence. She pointed out how unattractive it was. There was also a mattress on one site that someone was sleeping on. She also noted that one of these lots was owned by the City. One lot was a parking lot that wasn't kept up. She also said that she had a couple of offers on her house, but they backed out when they found out about the parking lot. She said this has been on the books for 17 years and they needed to know if it was going to be a parking lot or not because she had to reveal that to possi ble buyers. She pointed out that right now only two of the lots are vacant. r.. Commissioner Tschopp asked for and received clarification on which picture was the City owned lot. Mr. Drell said that he didn't believe the City has ever developed any parking lots on the north side of the alley. He explained that there were some parking lots built under the County 20 or 30 years ago, but he didn't think there had been any done by the City except for the one done in conjunction with Walgreens. Ms. Matson pointed out the lot. Mr. Drell said he thought that was a lot that was for the Enterprise Building which was built in the county around 30 years ago. Ms. Matson stated that it wasn't being maintained and it was an eye sore. Mr. Drell acknowledged that Ms. Matson provided good information and said staff would pass it along to the Code Enforcement Department to ` 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 get those lots cleaned up. In addition, we would get our own lot cleaned up. Ms. Matson said that this afternoon as she was walking by where the mattress is (underneath a tree) on the property where the parking lot might be, the person who had been sleeping there got some big bushes this afternoon and covered it all around so it doesn't show quite so clearly from the street. She thanked the commission for their attention. She stated that the neighborhood supported the approval of the golf shop, but not the condition on the vacant lot in their residential neighborhood. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan thought that the building was terrific and didn't think anyone objected to that. The additional parking was a necessity. The concerns of the residents exp�essed by Ms. Matson and the letter ' from other residents, particularly on San Benito, those concerns were � certainly valid. He did think there was a middle ground and a way to resolve the matter and concerns of the residents as well as the need for additional parking. One way was to place restrictions on the use of the parking lot. It appeared that if the parking lot is built appropriately with a wall, landscaping and setbacks and in addition to that they place a restriction on lighting and use in terms of not intruding into the private family times such as in the evening, whether that was 9:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. or something in between. He thought they could create a situation that actually improves the neighborhood by eliminating the vacant lot that lends itself to uses by vagrants and so forth. He thought they could actually enhance the neighborhood if the parking lot is done appropriately. He said he would be in favor of approval as presented by staff, but with a requirement for eventual addition of a variety of restrictions on the use of the parking lot if and when it is built. Mr. Drell said that for the parking lot to be built, it would have to come back before the Planning Commission. It would involve either a change in use or expansion of the building in which case it would have to come back for a hearing. Commissioner Jonathan thought the City has learned a lot, especially with the Ruth's Chris situation they faced. He thought they knew how to do it right at this point so that the neighborhood would not 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 � be adversely affected and it was his hope that the residential neighborhood would end up getting a net benefit out of a parking lot. Commissioner Campbell concurred. She was in favor of the project and stated that it is a great building. As stated in condition number 10, the second floor is limited to storage or for what they would be using it for and if they used it for anything else, they had to come back to the commission for approval. Commissioner Finerty also concurred since she knew that they would have to come back for the parking lot. Commissioner Tschopp said that the applicant had given up parking for landscaping and tried to do their part to hopefully move forward the possible future implementation of the Palma Village Plan or the Superblock Concept at some point in time. He thought the project was well done and well placed and should go forward. Before they were to ever move forward on potential parking, they would need to address the •.. neighbors' concerns. He was confident that what the City would put there would vastly improve what is there now as well as mitigate any concerns they had, whether it was block walls, landscaping, etc. He said he would anticipate that the City would put in something that would be better than a single family home. Those were the kinds of standards he would hold them to if they still have single family homes to the sides. Chairperson Lopez also concurred. He thought the building looked great and it was a wonderful use. He informed Ms. Matson that tonight they weren't looking at the development of that area specifically, but it is in the conditions for the future. He hoped they moved forward with it because this area was obviously used to travel to go through the alley way and in the long term he thought it would be a benefit for them to develop that area. Developed nicely with the right landscaping, he thought Ms. Matson would be comfortable with it right next door and it shouldn't create a problem for her. He was in favor of the project itself and asked for a motion. i��.. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 ; � �rll Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2108 approving PP 01 -26, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Tschopp said that given the comments made by the neighbors on the condition of the lots, he would request that Code Enforcement be asked to visit those lots and take applicable steps to get them cleaned up. Since the City is now going to be taking an irrevocable easement on that lot, the City should take special steps to make sure the lot doesn't look out of sorts. Commission concurred. C. Case No. GPA 01-04 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant ' Request fo� recommendation to City Council approval of a general plan amendment updating the Housing Element and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto. Mr. Drell said that the commission had the text of the element. He said there wasn't anything in it particularly dramatically changing it and it was a continuance of the existing policies. The consultant was present to give the commission a short summary of what is in there, what we are doing and why we're doing it. MRS. NICOLE CRISTE of Terra Nova Planning and Research in Palm Springs addressed the commission. She explained that they helped staff draft the update to the Housing Element. She had a couple of items to put on the record as to the law that requires the preparation of this element. She noted that the City is undertaking an overhaul of its General Plan, the whole General Plan document. In the interim, they have to prepare updates to the Housing Element that are regularly scheduled by law. That is why they � were bringing it ahead. The Housing Element planning period is � 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 �... five years and the Housing Element is to be updated regularly during those five years. The State went on hiatus in the early 90's when budget monies were tight. They were not funded at the state level for the Housing Elements so they did not go forward, but they did fund it for the 1998 to 2005 planning period. That is what is reflected in the text before the Planning Commission. The city's housing needs as determined by a Regional Housing Needs Assessment was included for the city of Palm Desert. For this planning period it is a total of 444 housing units in all income ranges and the Housing Element was required to reflect the provision of housing for all income ranges. Over the years it had become very much of a low income housing plan for many cities and they were focusing redevelopment funds as most cities do for the assistance of housing to meet the low and very low income housing need. The programs included reflect the activities of the Redevelopment Agency and clearly demonstrate that the city can meet its need for 300 affordable housing units in the next five-year planning period. The last page of the packet was a letter from the � State that demonstrates that they have with the Element before the Planning Commission met the requirements of the law and included all of the items that the law requires that they include in the update. They unfortunately were stuck with 1990 census numbers, so the statistics in the Element were a little skewed, but the law also requires that they use the last available census so they have included those numbers and updated with 2000 data wherever they could. Commissioner Tschopp noted that this is a draft plan and asked when they receive the updated 2000 census information if they would then update the plan at that point. Mrs. Criste explained that the Element is not required to be updated with 2000 census information in this planning cycle. The 2000 census data would be used in the next planning period, the 2005 to 2010 planning period. They would update when they update the Land Use Element of the General Plan to make sure both Elements are consistent with each other, but the statistical information would not likely be updated until the next cycle. �..► 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 A Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was traditional to address the transportation issues associated with the Housing Element, the promotion of housing opportunities for all economic segments and if they ever address Transportation Elements. For example, if a lot of the future �esidents of these projects use buses, if that was part of the Housing Element where there was an interaction with buses. Mrs. Criste explained that the City in its practical review of projects would include comments from Sunline as part of individual project review. They would also include public transit policies in the Circulation Element of the General Plan rather than generally in the Housing Element of the General Plan. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that she was saying that in other parts of the General Plan, those kinds of transportation needs such as mass transit, Sunline, etc., were in other parts of the General Plan rather than the Housing Element. Mrs. Criste said it was in the Circulation Element. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was coordinated with the Housing Element. He said he might be unfairly coming to the conclusion that this type of housing creates a need for public transportation. Mrs. Criste confirmed that there is somewhat of a nexus in so far as a lower income household might not be able to afford two cars, as an example, and two people go to two different places for work. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the Circulation Element was integrated with the Housing Element. Mrs. Criste explained that it is required by law that all elements of the General Plan are consistent so all elements have to relate to each other. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this item. There was no one and the public hearing was � closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 w. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting 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. 2109 recommending to City Council approval of Case No. GPA 01-04. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of Initiation of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment Mr. Drell explained that this relates to the issue brought up by the commission previously relative to the changing of the colors of commercial buildings. In reviewing the ordinances, they are less than clear. Staff was proposing that it be made clear and alternative language be inserted into the ordinance. Staff requested � that commission initiate the process to amend the zoning code to add this. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this would be prospective and existing changes would be grandfathered in. Mr. Drel! concurred. He indicated that staff would come back with a public hearing on this item. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, directing staff by minute motion to initiate a Zoning Ordinance Amendment relative to painting, repainting, texturing or retexturing of buildings. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (December 19, 2001 ) Commissioner Campbell informed the commission that at the last meeting they nominated a new chairman. And on January 17 at 4:00 p.m. they would be dedicating the artwork on EI Paseo. � 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 ; B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (December 6, 2001 and January 3, 2002) Commissioner Finerty stated that they discussed land use. Mr. Drell said that at the next meeting they would continue land use discussions. There would be some definitive direction from the committee. The focus was the area north of Frank Sinatra between the college and Monterey Avenue. Hopefully there would be some direction on the preferred land use alternative which could then be refined further through the Urban Design and Circulation Elements. There the connection between transportation and the residential land uses was an important subject of discussion. 3 Chairpe�son Lopez asked if the widening of Fred Waring would � stop at Portola. Mr. Drell said it was going to stop at San Pablo, but it had been extended it to the San Anselmo/College of the Desert entrance. Mr. Diercks didn't think a physical widening would go that far. He indicated it might be accomplished through striping to generate a third lane in each direction. He noted that there was also a second project here at the channel. From Highway 1 1 1 past the Town Center. Mr. Drell said that ultimately the grand plan was to widen it from Fred Waring to Washington. Commissioner Finerty clarified that it was Highway 111 to Washington. Mr. Drell said that was correct. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 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) 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 r.. XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Jonathan informed Mr. Diercks that there was traffic stili stacking up on Portola at the Vintage. Mr. Diercks said they have discussed the situation and the best available option was to discuss the issue with the Sheritf and use law enforcement to deal with some of the conditions out there. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff had talked with the Vintage people. Mr. Diercks said yes. They also talked to the Reserve people and tF�eir attitude is that the traffic isn't on their property at that time so it was the City's problem. Mr. Drell suggested that it might be an issue that needed to be taken up to a higher level, the City Council. Commissioner Jonathan asked what they could do and if they should make a recommendation to City Council. Mr. Drell said it wouldn't hurt. Chairperson Lopez asked for the proper method of doing that. Mr. Drell said the recommendation would be that the City Council investigate or pursue all appropriate measures to try to solve this probiem. Commissioner Jonathan said he would make that motion. Mr. Drell said ,� that through the City Manager he would draft a memo to the City Council. Chairperson Lopez noted that the February 5, 2002 meeting was canceled. Staff concurred. The next scheduled meeting would be February 19, 2002. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:2 PHIL DRELL, ecretary A ST: \ L PEZ, Chai� rson P I Desert Pla ni g Commission �.. / 27