Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0604 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - JUNE 4, 2002 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Finerty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. I11. ROLL CALL Members Present: Cindy Finerty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell, Vice Chairperson Sabby Jonathan Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Tech Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the May 7, 2002 meeting minutes. Commissioner Campbell noted a name correction on page 7. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the May 7, 2002 minutes as amended. Motion carried 5-0. E MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell indicated that the only pertinent item before Council was the zoning ordinance amendment relative to building colors. It received first reading and an article would be published in the City's Bright Side publication prior to second reading in August. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 02-08 - PARRIS HOLMES, JR./VICKIE WILLIAMSON HOLMES AND BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust the lot lines of Parcels 1 and 2, 330 Metate Place, APN 771- 370-015 and 771-350-044 within The Mountains at Bighorn. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, 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. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 A. Case No. PP 01-13 - CARL VOCE, Applicant and GORDON STEIN, Appellant Request for consideration of interpretation/amendment of conditions of approval for a project by Carl Voce (a three- building office complex 34,760 square feet on a 96,000 square foot site) on the north side of Alessandro between San Pascual and San Juan at 73-720 Alessandro. Mr. Drell clarified that the commission was not considering an amendment. The commission was determining compliance and to the extent it needs to clarify what it meant in determining compliance with an adopted resolution and adopted condition of approval. Staff wasn't proposing an amendment. Reviewing the background, Mr. Drell explained that when this project was originally approved there was concern expressed by the neighbor, Mr. Stein, regarding the impact of the parking lot on his residence across the street. A condition was added which required that the applicant shall enhance landscaping on the northeast corner of the site where the northerly driveway has been eliminated per Public Works Condition No. 4 to reduce view impacts to the greatest extent possible. He stated that there was some miscommunication on the staff level in terms of the implementation of this condition and a landscape plan was approved by the Landscape Manager without complete understanding of the intent of the commission. When Mr. Stein learned of the approved landscape plan, he questioned that it was accomplishing the stated intent of the commission when it approved that condition in that it was basically trees and desert shrubs and no wall. There was a very low berm proposed of about a foot or foot and a half. He passed out a photograph of the graded condition as approved in the landscape plan. On May 7 he said this issue was discussed by the Planning Commission. The commission referred the matter to the Architectural Review Commission to review the approved landscape plan to determine if they felt it was consistent with the direction from the Planning Commission and to recommend what was an appropriate solution. ARC did that and then it was up to Mr. Voce to either accept that solution or take it back to Planning Commission. Mr. Voce did not accept the solution. ARC 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 determined that the original landscape plan approved by staff was not consistent with the condition and they proposed that a five-foot block wall be built along the back end of that planter. If there was a way to design the wall to allow some landscape pockets to be created between the landscape planter and the parking lot that would be acceptable, too. But in essence a five-foot masonry barrier that would block car headlights and substantial view of the parking lot from the residence across the street. At the last meeting Mr. Stein actually suggested a compromise of four feet. That is a position the commission could endorse. He explained that the recommended solution by the ARC is inclusion of a five-foot wall as shown in the resolution Exhibit A and he wanted to amend that resolution deleting the reference to the amended condition and change it to a resolution determining compliance with Condition No. 11 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2083 and approving a landscape design which is in compliance with Condition No. 11 . In this case Exhibit "A" has a four-foot high wall shown, but the commission could determine if it should be four or five feet based on the result of the hearing. He recommended that the commission take testimony and make its determination. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A, in Palm Desert, California, addressed the commission and stated that he was the architect for Mr. Voce's project. He indicated that Mr. Stein came by his office and they talked about several things, but as an architect he could not commit 100% to anything. All he could say is they will do what they think is appropriate and best. They talked about a wall, but with a wall it was in too confining of an area for trees to work with it. Once they put in a wall there was not enough room for the root structure, especially if they were 36-inch box trees. It would have a tough time making it. He didn't think a wall was the proper answer. But there were many things like walls. He thought a hedge would be just as appropriate and there were a lot of fine materials they could make a hedge out of. Over at the landscape architect's office near Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, he used Texas Rangers as hedges. That gave a nice gray hedge. It was also approved by the City for the Schmid 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 development on Village Court. He planted a lot of Texas Ranger along that roadway that grows up quite well. In a year or two it could be a five-foot high hedge without any trouble. It could even be higher. He had seen them six and eight feet tall. As long as they keep trimming it, it keeps growing up. He thought that would really be the way to do it instead of a wall. The wall creates some other problems. Walls reflect sound so the sound off the street would be reflecting off of it back into the people across the street, plus the wall would reflect sound back into the parking lot. He thought the appropriate way would be to let them do it with a hedge type of material to get something up four or five feet, whatever the commission thought was appropriate. He acknowledged that it wouldn't be instant gratification and wouldn't happen over night, but within 12 months it would be there and people wouldn't really know the difference. He asked the Planning Commission to work on another issue: the back of the businesses on Alessandro. He said the back of those businesses have become quite shoddy and an eyesore. He thought the City should work with those property owners. Perhaps some funds as incentive to improve the landscaping in their back areas. He indicated that he was the architect on one of the buildings back in the early 70's and one problem was the power poles. They couldn't get too many trees growing too tall because they grow into the power poles. Southern California Edison would cut them because they didn't want anything growing into the power poles. Through some type of plant material that creates a hedge, he thought they could do something instead of sticking up a wall. The wall they put on Fred Waring against the property owners on the south side wasn't effective because it was only a couple of feet away from the curb. He didn't like walls and thought that plant material could do a lot for them especially if they got plant material that would grow fast, be hardy and create a type of hedge and get some color in it such as bougainvillea. They could probably get some hibiscus and there were tons of them at Desert Horizon's Country Club. It didn't look too bad because it flowers occasionally during the year. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Ricciardi looked at the possibility of doing a combination wall and plant material like bougainvillea or caliandra or something of that nature. Mr. Ricciardi said that something that came out of the Architectural Review Commission was two walls kind of slipping past one another, but then that would require double footings and they didn't really have the space for it. It was a nice concept that looked good on paper, but in reality it wasn't really going to work for them. Therefore, it is a nice concept but it doubled the problem. Curved walls were better than straight walls, but they were still masonry walls that with five feet in height, they would need at least a two-foot wide footing under the new codes. In a very small defined area there really wasn't enough room for the trees. To say they could do a combination, it really didn't work. They could do a combination hedge and get a hedge behind a hedge so one could be a little bit lower and one a little bit higher. Then they would get some difference in color. The Texas Ranger if they used the gray versus a green hedge material. He said they do a lot of walls where they have dark beige split face for the border and light beige split face in the fields. If they could do that with planting, they would be a lot farther ahead than with a wall with footings and trees trying to grow around the footings and fighting for space. The next thing they know, the root system isn't established and when a heavy wind comes everything falls down. That was very common here. At The Springs they planted a ton of trees but they over watered and when the wind came the roots were there, but they were in soggy soil and they just blew all over and now half the trees are gone. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that Mr. Ricciardi's case was before ARC on May 14. He asked if the hedge was proposed to them at that time. Mr. Ricciardi said he wasn't at the ARC meeting and he wasn't aware of it. He noted that when someone goes to an ARC meeting, you go to tell people what you'd like to do and then you are told what to do a lot of times. They didn't fight that, they just go along with it. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 i Commissioner Jonathan said he assumed that various alternatives have been discussed. Mr. Ricciardi thought a hedge would be a good alternative and would give Mr. Stein what he is looking for. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that proposal had been submitted, addressed or brought up before. Mr. Ricciardi said he thought it had, that it has been kicked around and talked about but once again, they were looking for the Planning Commission to say they could do a hedge and get the process going so that Mr. Stein knows that something will be done that will take care of his problem. Commissioner Jonathan asked if any of the other proposals that were discussed seemed to be potentially workable to Mr. Ricciardi and his client. Mr. Ricciardi said he wasn't at the Architectural Review Commission meeting and from what he understood, the wall seemed to become the answer. He didn't think the wall was the correct answer at all, but he was only one professional with 40 years experience. Chairperson Finerty asked if Mr. Stein wished to address the commission. MR. GORDON STEIN, 44-858 San Juan in Palm Desert, said he put together a little packet to get his ideas across and would run through it very quickly. He said that page one showed the project site and their residence across the street. Page two showed a quick shot of their residence and the onsite conditions. Page three was the view of the project from the front of their property. His concern initially was that it is important to separate commercial properties from R-1 to some degree so they could maintain and keep a sense of R-1 . He said the mounding shown in the picture was existing with some irrigation already installed onsite. He felt that this would not do the job they need to get the separation from the parking lots, the noise, the lights which during the winter 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 months when it is dark by 5:00 p.m. would shine directly across. Also, just maintaining a sense of residential area as opposed to being right on top of a parking lot. He said he appreciated Mr. Ricciardi's comments and yet with a lot of experience himself on architectural review boards and such, he knew that plant material was not always a permanent solution to a problem. Things die and get cut back. On page four, he took pictures of the area. The top two pictures were of a project recently completed at San Jacinto and Alessandro Drive and they put in a five-foot block wall around that property abutting the residential neighborhood areas. It was a little stark and could use a little more planting, but that was the solution at that point. The bottom two pictures were taken by Walgreens and there was a full height block wall with plant material and trees. On page five, it was a picture of Mr. Voce's building on the Alessandro side. He said the picture was taken two to three weeks ago and would give the commission a picture of what is going in for landscaping. They have desert gold and plant material there. He assumed they were 24-inch box trees or 36. That was to give the commission a little bit of an idea. On page six, the concern he had was if they do a similar type of landscape plan or even an enhanced plan, they were really going 'to have a view of that parking structure and the cars. They were going to be right on top of them. That to him said it wasn't really a residential setting. On page seven was a sketch he did to show what it would look like if they installed a block wall and did a good landscape job to soften the wall with some halfway decent sized trees. That could really create a screen and help them maintain that feel. He disagreed with Mr. Ricciardi and thought there was enough room with a little creativity to get some decent sized trees and plant material in that space. Referring to page eight, he said that based on what ARC did, they mentioned a curved block wall and he said that they could see that some space was created on either side of that wall that more than gave them some planting room. It was tight, but he thought it could be done. He knew that curved wall block walls were not inexpensive, so if they looked at page nine another solution might be to jog the wall, creating again some texture to that wall and giving some planting spaces on either side of the wall to get some trees in and get the material needed. He believed they could do a good job on their own side. It faces west 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 so they could get some good sun for bougainvillea on their side of the parking lot. He said he understood development and is very pro development. He was also very happy with what Mr. Voce has done with the structures next door and he thought Mr. Ricciardi did a good job and agreed that some of the buildings needed a little bit of cleanup on Alessandro. He didn't wish to put a burden on the developer, but he said it was important to try and maintain a sense of residential for them as best they could since they were heavily exposed. His idea was with a more permanent solution with the wall and good landscaping. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. CARL VOCE, 545 Via Media in Palos Verdes Estates, California, addressed the commission. He stated that he is the owner of the property. He said he was really tired of this and would like to get this job over. He read the recommendation of the staff and they recommended a four-foot wall. He was willing to compromise and if they went to a three-foot wall with the way staff proposed, he was willing to do it exactly how they proposed. That was a compromise. He didn't like the wall, but he thought that would do the job. He just wanted to get it over. He thought it was unfortunate what was happening here. Developers should have some rights, too. He knew they had individual homeowners and they should look at something nice. But they also go to a lot of expense, it was time-consuming and there were a lot of new regulations and new rules. This was approved and it wasn't fair to him that he has to go through all of this and he was trying to get finaled right now. He thought a three-foot wall would do the job and he was willing to do that. That was a compromise. Chairperson Finerty indicated that her understanding of the compromise was that ARC recommended five feet and staff recommended four as a compromise. She asked if he would be amenable to the four feet. Mr. Voce said no. Three feet was the rule for screening. That was the allowance and he was willing to do that. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 Chairperson Finerty asked what rule he was referring to. Mr. Voce stated that it was the rule established for any screening; a three-foot high wall or hedges. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell indicated that the minimum required by the code in the C-1 and R-1 zones is three feet. The direction from the commission when applying the condition when they said "to the greatest extent possible" implied something beyond the minimum because if the minimum was all that was required, a special condition would not have been needed. Chairperson Finerty concurred. Commissioner Campbell asked what the height was of an SUV's headlights. Mr. Drell didn't know, but thought they could be higher than three feet. Mr. Diercks thought they were around three feet. He didn't know exactly. Typically they tried to maintain a three-foot height for sight distance clearance. Anything above three feet starts blocking lines of sight. He thought that in this case what they wanted was something higher than three feet. Mr. Drell said that in terms of footing design there is a significant increase in footing between four feet and five feet. That was part of the motivation to recommend four feet instead of five feet. Four feet would allow more room for plant material. He thought one of the architects could describe the difference between the footing for a four-foot wall as opposed to a five-foot wall. Relative to the proposals, the reason staff did not embrace the ARC's ideas about a meandering wall was because there wouldn't be room for a tree at the end of the tongue if they split the planter in half with a wall. Basically they would have to go to two trees. Where the wall jogged in toward the parking lot there would be room for two trees, but if they were going to move that wall any where off the edge of the curb near the entry drive, right now it was bare minimum for a tree. To create that effect they would go to two trees and probably a large shrub, a Texas Ranger or another large shrub in the smaller space. Chairperson Finerty asked if Mr. Drell knew how many trees could be put into Concept B on page nine. Mr. Drell said either of those was okay. Wherever they started splitting that end area which is already the bare minimum to put in a tree, not only were they splitting it with the wall, there is some footing. It might be an 18-inch footing instead of a two- 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 foot footing, so it was only about five or six feet to begin with and if they split it that left only three feet and a footing and that wasn't enough for a tree. Pretty much anywhere other than the wall directly right up against the curb would eliminate the tree on the end. But there were large shrubs that could be planted as well. Mr. Voce stated that another reason for three feet is that from the parking lot they could see some greenery as well. Three feet would allow that. Those plants would grow above the three feet so they could still see the beauty from the inside of the parking lot as well as the outside. It would accomplish that. A three-foot wall would also have a smaller footing and they could get the plant closer to the wall as well. Four feet was bigger than a three foot. There was an advantage on both sides. He believed that in a year Mr. Stein would not see anything because plants grow fast. They have so many plants in it and the trees. Mr. Stein lived there for 11 years looking at garbage over there and in another year Mr. Voce thought Mr. Stein would have a beautiful sight over there. They .. wouldn't see any cars or anything else except the greenery. Other than that he thought he would be forced to go to counsel. He would accept a three-foot wall and would do that right now just the way staff recommended. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to speak. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the original Condition No. 11 indicated that the applicant "shall enhance the landscaping." He asked if landscaping could be interpreted to include block walls or if landscaping referred exclusively to planting material. Mr. Hargreaves stated that they were the commission that imposed the condition and they were entitled to interpret it within reasonable boundaries. Mr. Drell said that these are called garden walls and where they show up on plans are on landscape plans. For those items that typically show on landscape plans one could call that part of landscaping. Regarding the suggestion to compromise the footing to four feet, Commissioner Tschopp asked if that was based on the expense and the 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 footing size or if staff took into consideration the view across with a four-foot fence versus a five-foot wall. Mr. Drell said that staff's consideration was that in terms of blocking headlights, four feet would be adequate. The smaller the footing, the more opportunity to get landscaping in so it was kind of a balance there. He thought Mr. Stein might have even suggested four feet at the last Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification that the commission was making a ruling on whether or not they are in compliance with the current condition or if they were going to adopt a new one. Mr. Drell explained that there was no need or necessity to adopt any amendment. They were determining compliance of the staff approved plan and the attorney could explain that errors by staff do not change the intent of a Planning Commission condition especially when we have identified it at a stage when not a great deal of expense has already gone in. They were hoping to rectify an error and by clarifying what the commission's intent was on the condition and specifying this time with an exhibit of a landscape plan which meets that condition. Chairperson Finerty asked if the landscape plan would go back to ARC or if Mr. Spencer Knight would be involved. Mr. Drell said yes. The plan that staff recommended was similar or nearly identical in terms of landscape material to the approved plan with the exception of the wall which is installed right at the curb. If one of these other alternatives was approved which would really be done for Mr. Voce's benefit, meaning that the other designs really don't provide any benefit to Mr. Stein, they really provide the parking lot with some opportunities for landscaping on the parking lot side. He thought to go to the more complicated expense of jogging or curving would be Mr. Voce's decision if he wanted to get some landscaping on his side. The downside was that they would lose that ability to plant a large tree at the corner. Chairperson Finerty clarified that the commission needed to determine if this plan is in compliance with the Planning Commission's condition. Mr. Drell said whether the originally approved staff plan was in compliance and staff's determination or recommendation was that it wasn't, and then to endorse or approve a plan which they believed to be in compliance. Commissioner Jonathan noted that plan was identified in the staff report as Exhibit "A" and the wall was indicated as four feet and it was at the rear of the corner landscaped area straight along the back. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 Mr. Drell concurred and said that it would allow the installation of the approved plant material. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for staff's recommendation to have a four-foot wall which was why she questioned the height of an SUV's headlights. The whole purpose was to hide the headlights that would be coming from the parking lot. Also, they have approved many projects in terms of landscaping that when they have the plants put in they are so small they would take quite a few years to grow. A wall would take care of the problem right away and with the landscaping on both sides, Mr. Stein's side and the parking side, they would go ahead and have nice greenery. If they don't have a wall, landscaping also pertains to having boulders. They could have big boulders there that would do the same thing as the wall. She stated that she was in favor of staff's recommendation. Commissioner Tschopp said he could probably be convinced that staff's recommendation would work with a four-foot wall, so he would go with that although ARC studied it quite a bit. The architects there thought a five-foot wall would do it, but he believed that with a four-foot wall and the right type of landscaping the intent of the Planning Commission to shield that residence directly across the street would be met and that was to have that residence not looking down the barrel of a parking lot which none of them would want to look at. He thought it was incumbent upon the City to screen residences from commercial development especially when they were looking at unattractive commercial development which a parking lot, no matter how beautiful the building is, is unattractive. He was in favor of giving staff's four-foot wall with very good landscaping a try. Commissioner Lopez concurred. With all due respect, they would also like to get this project done also. He was disappointed that the ideas about hedges came up but hadn't been discussed in depth where it might be a possibility for a solution. It took going back to ARC and coming back to Planning Commission for the interpretation to be that the condition wasn't met and if they had allowed the process to continue and the construction to continue, what would have ended up being there from the Planning Commission's interpretation of the condition was not in compliance. Now they have to go to a point and say they need to put up 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 a wall and quite frankly, five feet was probably better, but he thought four feet would probably accomplish what they wanted to do. When he sat over in the parking lot tonight and looked down that whole area to the Stein home, if they allowed what was going to happen there to happen, it would have been an intrusive problem for that family and that home when people pull out, turn on their headlights and head out to that exit. Right now he thought the thing to do was to accept the staff recommendation of the four-foot wall with landscaping to enhance that wall and move on. Commissioner Jonathan concurred with the other commissioners. He said there was no question in his mind that the plan being recommended by staff is appropriate and necessary to maintain the residential integrity of the area. At the same time he wanted to make note of his concern with regard to process. There was an approved landscape plan and that approved plan did not contain a wall and the applicant had a right to proceed with the assumption and the conclusion that an approved plan is an approved plan. He was very concerned about that. But having said that, the long-term possibility of creating something that is best for the neighborhood and hopefully best for the applicant in the long run would outweigh the inconvenience and the lack of a smooth process at least with regard to this particular portion of the project. What he was saying was that he didn't like how we got to this point, but he thought it was necessary and appropriate and he concurred with his fellow commissioners. Chairperson Finerty noted that Mr. Stein made many attempts when he became aware of the landscape plan to call it to everyone's attention. He didn't receive any response. That is one of the reasons why it took so long to get to where we are right now. She thought the commission's condition was quite clear. They stated that the applicant shall enhance the landscaping to reduce the view impacts to the greatest extent possible. She thought the only way to do that was with a permanent solution of a four-foot wall with nice landscaping. She also agreed with the other commissioners and hoped this settled the matter. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as amended. Motion carried 5-0. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2127, determining that the previously staff-approved landscape plan was not in compliance with the intent of Condition No. 11 of Resolution No. 2083. The Commission also made the determination that the landscape plan including a four-foot high wall as shown on Exhibit "A" attached to the draft resolution is in compliance with the intent of Condition No. 11 . Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. PP 02-04 - WINDEMERE DEVELOPERS, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to construct a four-unit apartment complex consisting of two one-story buildings located at 44-460 San Rafael Avenue, and approval of an adjustment to allow a 21-foot portion of a building wall to encroach up to 10 feet into a minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet. i Mr. Urbina informed the commission that the project site is located on the east side of San Rafael Avenue south of Catalina Way and north of San Gorgonio. The project site proposed two apartment buildings. On the north side of the project site the building would have three apartment units each with 983 square feet, two bedrooms and two baths. Parking would be provided in the front with six parking spaces for those units, four which would be under a metal, flat-roofed carport. Mr. Urbina explained that the precise plan application included a request for a reduction in the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet because a portion of the three-unit apartment building encroaches eight feet into the 20-foot rear yard setback. The applicant submitted a letter from the adjacent single-family residential property owner to the east stating that the property owner has no objection to the encroachment of the apartment building into the 20-foot setback. The two one-story buildings had red tile roofs and beige exterior stucco walls. Planning staff recommended adoption of the Planning Commission Resolution approving Precise Plan of Design 02-04 subject to the conditions in the resolution. Mr. Urbina asked for any questions. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 Commissioner Campbell noted that Architectural Review recommended some high windows and asked where those windows were located. Mr. Urbina explained there were some revisions to both of the apartment buildings. The northerly apartment building included a recommendation to create a pop-out window in the dining room. He noted that it was a two-foot pop out and they added three smaller high windows in the living room. Those were the ones facing west and would be visible from San Rafael Avenue. Those two enhancements were made to the three-unit building. For the one-unit apartment building, the enhancements included adding a window to the garage which faces San Rafael Avenue and some fake shutters. Those were the enhancements requested by the Architectural Review Commission. Commissioner Campbell asked if that would only be on that one apartment building. Mr. Urbina said it would be on both of them facing San Rafael. Commissioner Lopez asked for the height of the building encroaching into the setback area. Mr. Urbina said it would be 13 feet 6 inches and pointed out the location on the displayed map. He said there was a small porch-like feature on that corner. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the applicant provided staff with any kind of a drawing or rendering of the covered metal parking or if it was pretty much a standard commercial-covered metal parking structure. Mr. Urbina indicated there was no rendering provided of that metal carport other than the elevation. It appeared to be a standard flat roof metal carport. He showed the elevation that would be visible from San Rafael Avenue. The carports were approximately 17 feet deep and covered the length of the parking spaces. It appeared to be a standard metal design. Commissioner Jonathan asked what portion of the structure would intrude into the setback. He asked if it was a dining room or a bedroom or their back yard. He asked for clarification. Mr. Urbina said it was the kitchen area. He pointed out the entrance of the apartment and said that there is a covered porch and a window from the kitchen sink and that was part of the kitchen. It was an approximately 20-foot long distance of the wall that encroaches into that setback because of the trapezoidal shape of the lot, but the average setback was 21 square feet for that building. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was just the corner of the structure that is 12 feet. Mr. Urbina said yes. Mr. Drell noted that the 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 City has adopted provisions in the R-1 zone that allows them to average setbacks but they didn't extend those same provisions to the multifamily zone, so this condition would be acceptable if this was a single family home. It would be in compliance. Recently they did a lot of those R-1 standard amendments that probably properly should apply to the R-2 and R-3 zones as well. So that is why they were here for this exception. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. The applicant was present but indicated that he had nothing to add. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she visited the property today and asked about the fence and height for the buildings behind the project site. Mr. Urbina said that to the east of the project site there is an existing six- foot high wooden fence that separates this vacant site from single family homes to the east. The applicant was proposing to construct a six-foot high block wall. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2128, approving PP 02-04, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. CUP 02-06 - CINGULAR WIRELESS/MAREE HOEGER, THE CONSULTING GROUP, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 65-foot high wireless telecommunication tower on property located at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 Mr. Bagato addressed the commission and explained that the subject property is located at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, also known as the Civic Center date palm grove on the southeast corner of Magnesia Falls and San Pablo. The property is zoned P for Public Institution. He said that Cingular was proposing to construct a 65-foot tall monopalm that would be 70 feet to the top of the palm fronds and an associated equipment shelter. This artificial date palm tree would be placed within the existing date palm grove behind baseball field number four. The applicant would provide additional landscaping and palm trees that would vary in height from 30 feet to 40 feet next to the proposed tower to help screen the facility. The equipment shelter would be located near the base of the monopalm which is inset four feet below the grade. There was a slight berm in front of the shelter. The design of the shelter would be a split- face block that would match most of the architecture within the Civic Center complex as well as the other park elements. On April 24 the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project and granted preliminary approval. There was one condition that the applicant worked on with Spencer Knight, the City's Landscape Manager, to make sure the color of the fronds and the style of the fronds match the existing trees. The applicant sent out a person to pick up a sample of our live fronds and was in the process of working through that and would get that approved at the final ARC review to make sure it matches. Mr. Bagato stated that the tower is proposed 175 feet south of the residential zone. Section 25.104.060 allows the Planning Commission to waive that separation distance of 300 feet from residential if it is determined that the tower and antenna are designed to utilize a stealth design. He said that the project meets all of the zoning requirements with the exception of that separation distance from residential. Staff felt the artificial palm tree was designed well enough with the five mature live palms around it in varying heights to break it up along with the existing date palm grove and that corner would provide that stealth communication design as well as the design of the equipment shelter with some low profile landscaping around the shelter along with the split-face design. He stated that the project is a Class 3 categorical exemption so no further determination was needed for CEQA purposes. Staff recommended approval and adoption of the draft resolution approving CUP 02-06 subject to conditions. Commissioner Campbell asked if the trunk of the palm tree would be round or square. Mr. Bagato said it would be round and 24 inches. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 Commissioner Jonathan said that the proposed height at the top of the antennas was indicated at 65 feet so the fronds would go a little bit above that. Mr. Bagato concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the highest newly planted trees were 40 feet, so this was over 50% higher than those trees. His question was if there were other mature trees that approach the 65-foot height or if this would stand above all other trees. Mr. Drell said that the problem is that they can't have the palms the same height as the antenna. The water and the fronds actually interfere. If and when the trees get that high they have to replace them and put in smaller ones. They have to have clearance above the surrounding trees. Commissioner Jonathan said that was okay, but what he was asking is if the highest trees that would surround the antenna were 40 feet or if any of them would approach the 65-foot height a little bit more. Mr. Bagato thought the highest of the new ones would be 40. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the height of other existing trees. Mr. Drell thought they were taller. Mr. Bagato believed that the existing trees were around 50 feet tall. He noted that it hadn't been brought up previously. Mr. Drell pointed out that in the picture the existing trees appeared to be 50 or 55 feet tall. The one right in the middle was one of the existing trees and it was about ten feet taller than the ones being proposed. Commissioner Campbell noted that it was quite at a distance from the proposed monopalm. Mr. Drell concurred. He pointed out that the balifield lights are 80 feet tall. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that in the conditions of approval it states that the applicant agrees to maintain the artificial palm trees. If they needed to remove the other live palm trees surrounding it, he asked if they would be required to replace those with palm trees of similar height that is there now because it wasn't in the condition. Mr. Drell said that was correct. They are required to maintain them and the trees are required to continue to exist. If they choose to remove them as a result of the fact that they have grown too high, they have to maintain the approval. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was an agreement that states that. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report indicates that the Planning Commission may waive the stealth design. He didn't think that 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 was what they were being asked to do. They were being asked to make an exception to the residential separation. It was still a stealth design. Mr. Bagato concurred. He said that under the code section for stealth design, the commission could waive the separation requirement of a 300- foot radius from a residential zone. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a material sample. Mr. Bagato said no, although he had a picture of what they sent in. He said they were working with Mr. Knight on the review. Commissioner Jonathan said it would be nice to have in the future. He noted that in the past the commission has been shown the material. Mr. Bagato indicated that the applicant has been working very hard with Mr. Knight to make sure it matches the existing palms and just picked up a sample of one of ours last Friday to try and match it. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MARIO MUSSO for Maree Hoeger, 3241 Brimhall in Los Alamitos, California, addressed the commission. He said he worked for The Consulting Group out of Irvine and they were representing Cingular Wireless. He stated that he was present to address any questions and to assure the commission that Cingular would work hand in hand with the staff in terms of the implementation and installation of this facility. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Lopez asked, if there is a thunder storm and lightening, if these monopalms are grounded and if there was a history behind this. Mr. Musso said that one thing very imperative for them to function is they had to be strongly grounded. The fronds are actually made out of a plastic material so there was no danger at all in terms of electrical transmission in the facility itself. Commissioner Lopez said his concern was that it would be located by well-used baseball fields with night games going on and there were times in the evenings when we have thunder and lightening. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 ire Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving 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. 2129, approving CUP 02-06, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. PP 02-02 - JOSEPH McCOY and MARK B. VALENTINO, Applicants Request for approval of a precise plan to construct a 10,000 square foot office/warehouse building located at 42-460 Ritter Circle. Mr. Bagato explained that this is an infill project between two existing warehouse buildings and is the last vacant parcel on Ritter Circle. The site is zoned for Service Industrial as well as the surrounding properties. The proposed building size would be 10,000 square feet of office/warehouse. The office would total 7,500 square feet and the remaining 2,500 square feet would be used for warehouse. He stated that the project meets all the requirements of the zone for office and warehouse use. On May 14, 2002, the Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval subject to the applicant removing some trim from the building and around the windows. The applicant met that condition as shown on the elevations included in the commission packets and on the color sample on display. He said that the material being used is a textured color with a stone veneer and he passed out a color sample. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on the material of the brown vertical sections. Mr. Bagato explained that portion would be the stone veneer. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it had depth and wasn't just a painted stone veneer. Mr. Bagato confirmed that it has some depth and it projects in front of the actual building as shown on the site 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 plan. Overall the project met the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements of the area. He said the applicant also met the requirements of the Architectural Review Commission. Mr. Bagato explained that this project was considered a Class 32 Categorical Exemption under CEQA for infill situations and recommended approval of PP 02-02, subject to conditions attached to the draft resolution. Commissioner Campbell said that while looking at that property today, that area looked like a storage place and asked who all of that belonged to. Mr. Bagato said that it was owned by the property owner, Joseph McCoy and his business, Creative Contractors. He was going to run his personal business on this site. It would be used for his business and warehouse. His company designs gazebos. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MARK VALENTINO, 44-267 Monterey Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said he would like to ask one question. On Condition No. 12 of the conditions of approval it stated that a second access is required but the letter from the Fire Department mentioned that they might be able to do it with a turnaround rather than a second exit. He stated that he would like to leave that option open. Commissioner Jonathan asked for the location of the turnaround provision. Mr. Valentino said it was in a letter submitted by the Fire Department. He said that if they could satisfy the Fire Department, they would like to keep that open. Commissioner Jonathan asked for staff comments on that. Mr. Bagato stated that when he spoke with the Fire Marshal, his concern was that he wasn't sure they would be able to get enough turnaround within this area and that a second access could be used where Waste Management asked the applicant to turn the trash cans around to face the alleyway to get access to the trash receptacles from the back end of the property. He thought there could be a possible access through there as well as using 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 it for that. He pointed out the location where his main concern was in being able to turn around. Commissioner Jonathan asked for staff to point out the location of the second access. Commissioner Campbell asked for Mr. Bagato to point out the location of the alley. Mr. Bagato indicated that the existing alley runs along the north side of the property behind the block wall and pointed out the area. He said that if the applicant could provide a design that would work for a turnaround, then the Fire Marshal said he would be satisfied without a second access. His understanding was that the applicant would design this to serve as a second access. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was where the trash containers were located. Mr. Bagato concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked where the trash containers would be moved. Mr. Bagato said he wasn't sure. Mr. Valentino said that was kind of his problem. If they couldn't satisfy the Fire Department, they would be happy to work out some kind of second access. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that staff was saying that if the turnaround is adequate, staff was okay without a secondary access. Mr. Bagato concurred. Mr. Drell noted that typically the Fire Marshal's satisfaction with his own condition is his judgement. All of those conditions are ultimately negotiable with the Fire Marshal. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2130, approving PP 02-02, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 E. Case No. PP/CUP 02-07 - PATHFINDER COMMUNITY OF THE RISEN CHRIST CHURCH, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use permit and parking adjustment for a 2,000 square foot church facility at the northwest corner of Alessandro Drive and San Jacinto Avenue, 73-900 Alessandro Drive. Mr. Drell stated that there was a site plan and proposal for a 2,000 square foot church on a little lot on Alessandro before the commission. He noted that they had some discussion about this previously relative to the unique circumstances of the church use and the confined space of the lot which would not permit the parking to satisfy the full Sunday service requirement. As a result, the applicant proposed some novel solutions and staff was suggesting that they be approved. The premise for the site plan and parking arrangement was based on the fact that the principle intense full use of the church and the church assembly hall basically occurs in the evenings and on weekends. Therefore, they designed the onsite parking requirement as if this was an office building which its use approximates during the day. As a 2,000 square foot building it complies with the four per 1 ,000 office requirement of eight parking spaces. As described in the staff report, the more extraordinary uses occur in the evening with daily masses Monday through Thursday which would attract five to 15 people. The Sunday mass could attract between 10 and 35 people and some Saturday workshops which also could attract up to 30 people. It was being suggested that evening or weekend parking demand be satisfied with the existing street parking. The street is designed for full parking on the street and within 300 feet of the location there are 34 parking spaces on the street. With the eight spaces on the site, that would meet the requirement for the parking of the assembly hall. He noted that San Jacinto has been closed for approximately 10 years with the ultimate goal of cul-de-saccing it. When they approved the medical building on the east side, it provided and had design provisions for that cul-de-sac and that property owner was required to deposit approximately $5,000 for the ultimate installation of the cul-de-sac. San Jacinto is a relatively short street and it is clearly marked as a dead-end. The main reason for the cul-de-sac was for emergency fire access. It has 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 been proposed here that in lieu of the cul-de-sac that was originally designed that an emergency fire gate be installed on San Jacinto allowing fire access through and eliminating the need for the cul-de-sac. Because the fire access doesn't require the full 36 feet of right-of-way of street width, the applicant was also requesting that the existing half street that is adjacent to the property be vacated and incorporated into the project parking lot and landscaping. Whenever a street or public right-of-way is no longer necessary for public access, that property owner has the ability to request for it to be returned back to him or her. In this case the remaining width of San Jacinto which is the half street associated with the east side of the property of San Jacinto was adequate to meet the fire access requirements. This would also relieve that property owner of paying for that cul-de-sac and with this improvement his $5,000 deposit would be returned to him. The obligation of completing the street and all that is required for the fire access would be the burden of this property and this project. Mr. Drell showed the elevations. He described it as a single-story building .r in a contemporary southwest design. He showed the elevation from Alessandro, the two side elevations, the west elevation, and the east elevation facing the parking lot and San Jacinto. He stated that the elevations were approved by the Architectural Commission. In response to the legal notice, the property owner to the north submitted a list of comments and concerns about the project. Mr. Drell said they would go through them one by one. He noted that they were on page four. 1) That the wall on the north property line be a minimum of eight feet in height measured from the church patio. He said there was a condition, number 16, which requires an eight-foot wall. 2) The trash enclosure shown adjacent to the front yard driveway. Condition No. 17 relocates the trash enclosure. 3) A concern about the church becoming a full-time child care / school facility during the week. Mr. Drell said that the tightness of the site and the parking conditions prohibit day care or school use without coming back to get an amendment to this permit. 4) Concern about the vacating of San Jacinto which they felt limited their ability for themselves to convert to an office use in the future. Mr. Drell explained that this referred back to the Palma Village Plan which identified the north side of Alessandro as potential professional office use and in discussing that, in this particular area because the lot is so shallow 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 it was felt that there should be the opportunity if necessary to expand that office use to two lots in depth to allow for reasonable office development. The goal of the Palma Village Plan was to provide for compatible uses on Alessandro while protecting the residential character of the properties behind. If in this case a two-lot depth was going to be promoted, it was under the assumption that the use of the second lot as a commercial use would be associated with the lot on Alessandro. There was never a recommendation that we would have two separate office uses both with access onto San Jacinto. Staff's feeling was that we didn't anticipate that someone could create a use like this on such a tight site, but it does, with a minimal amount of impact on the residential area. Therefore, staff felt this was consistent with the Palma Village Plan. The previous approved plan with the cul-de-sac would have also isolated this lot from Alessandro and would have precluded its commercial development. 5) A question about relocating the gate system and a concern about creating an area for people to loiter. The Kings were suggesting that the gate be relocated closer to San Jacinto. Mr. Drell thought this could be accomplished and with the approval of the Fire Marshal and the Public Works Department he had no problem moving that gate closer to San Jacinto. He noted that area has been closed for a long time and this wouldn't change the loitering problem. If anything, the night time activities planned by the facility would tend to discourage loitering since there will be public activity. Where they have public activity there is probably a more secure situation. 6) There was a suggestion that the gate be removed entirely and that the street be opened up and become a through street again. The way San Jacinto was designed with direct view from Portola, when there was congestion on Portola this was too inviting a short cut and that was why the residents on the street demanded a gate. 7) Parking lot and building lighting, Mr. Drell said that they would be regulating lighting for this facility that will be no more intrusive than a residence. It would be the same for air- conditioning (8). The building is residential in scale and its air-conditioning will be no more or no less than one would expect with a residence. 9) Concern with construction hours which would be subject to our normal ordinances. (10 mentioned loitering which had been addressed previously.) 11) The Kings requested all maintenance activities be done during the office hours of the facility. Mr. Drell said there was a condition which addresses that. 12) There was a concern about the acoustic nature of the building. Mr. Drell said that the building will be subject to our noise 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 ordinance and staff anticipates it to be no more or less intrusive than any typical residential use. 13) There was a concern about special events. Mr. Drell said this was something staff learned about late right before finishing the report. In addition to the Monday through Thursday mass, there will potentially be classes with 10-13 people several times per week. Staff felt that they had stretched a lot for this project and staff's recommendation of approval was based on most of the activities being on weekends and Sunday and that the request for all of these special events, until they have a handle of how the facility will function, they would rather forego those and Condition No. 24 limits the weekday evening functions to mass only. After a year of observing how the facility and the parking arrangement work, they would consider expanding the special events. Mr. Drell said that staff felt that the unique nature of the use and their use of the site with their residential scale made it an acceptable project. The availability of on-street parking he felt was adequate to meet the high demand parking use in the evenings and weekends and therefore �.. recommended approval with the proposed conditions. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the need for the fire gates on San Jacinto. It was originally looked at as being a cul-de-sac and now they are putting in a fire gate and the reason he asked the question, to have fire gates made it look unfinished or like someone didn't plan right as opposed to a cul-de-sac which at least looks like it was planned. He asked if there was a need to have fire gates there. Mr. Drell said if they wanted the street closed. The problem with cul-de-sacs, to accommodate the snorkel truck, they had to be huge with a 90-foot radius. A cul-de-sac would have consumed a large piece of the property in addition to the existing right-of-way. He had seen very expensive houses with gates in front. The gates would have to be decorative and the goal would be that the gates would look appropriate. But it relieves the requirement to create this huge cul-de-sac. The Fire Department is reticent to use their reverse gear. Commissioner Tschopp noted that on the special events that it was just limited to not during weekdays or nights so on weekends they could have multiple special events. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Commissioner Campbell said that when they talked about this a while back, she thought it was only going to be mass on Sunday or the 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 weekend. Now all of a sudden the only day they wouldn't have service will be on Friday. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Campbell noted that it goes from Monday through Thursday evening and asked what the hours would be in the evening. Mr. Drell said that they would have to ask the applicant. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that before it was going to be very simple with limited use. Mr. Drell said that staff had the same concern. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHARLES MARTIN, 73-733 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, informed commission that he was the architect. He stated that he would try to go through this in a chronological manner. He said that when they first started this project, they looked at the cul-de- sac and fought with it. They came to the Planning Commission, to the City Council and to Public Works and their comments continued to fall on deaf ears. They went to the Fire Department and continued to deal with Planning. The cul-de-sac disappeared for a while, then it came back and basically what the cul-de-sac did was it created a large asphalt spot at the end of this street that people would get to eventually. Once they started into the street there are signs that will tell you it isn't a through street. They would pick the first driveway on the left, pull into it, pull out, turn around and go back. To get in there, if the Fire Department was going to go through the cul-de-sac they would have to jump the curb. Unless the City dropped the curb down, they wouldn't get through there. If the cul-de-sac was there, there wouldn't be any gates so they would have cross traffic going through there. Vehicles would go through. He read the letter from the owners of the two lots and it seemed to him what the church has done was actually kept that piece of property so that it could eventually become an office site. So if he was proposing an office on that space, he would want to get that half of the street, move the gates, and still be able to go through there into that spot. If they didn't allow any traffic through there, then he didn't know what would happen with that lot. He thought they had done that property owner a favor in still allowing that access to get through. What they did was in doing the project and coming before the 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 Planning Commission and Architectural Board, was they were approved by them and sent on to Planning Commission. ARC was happy, he was happy. He said he wanted to fight for a steeple 100 feet tall, but the congregation didn't want it. So here they were now at the point that unless the commission wanted to get into the architecture and site planning, they were into the imposed conditions. They did their submission and were waiting for this meeting and then received a letter from the neighbors to the north, Mr. King and Mr. Cleary, and their concerns. Then he received the conditions and the conditions pretty much looked at their concerns and then they pretty well address each of those concerns. Overall he was involved in designing the Greek Orthodox Church and they were surrounded on three sides by residential. They have a major event each year which for this city a major event. It is their festival. They have funerals. This church would have funerals. They have them during the week. They have them any time. They couldn't plan for those kinds of events. So he asked the Greek Church what they had to do and the conditions placed on them by the City. They didn't have any conditions like these and they are surrounded on three sides by residential. He believed the proposed conditions are restrictive and they restrict the church from being a church. Regarding the first item on the Kings' letter, it had to do with the trash. He talked with Waste Management and asked why they had to put in a big two-yard dumpster here since they really aren't going to create that much trash. They wouldn't even really have a kitchen. They would have a sink, a refrigerator and a microwave. So a lady there told him that they would deal with this on a residential scale with regular garbage cans. In terms of what they could do with eight-foot walls and gates, architecturally they could do anything. He wasn't trying to spend their money, but they could meet those requirements. However, he asked who else was being required to do this. He asked if there was another religious structure, another religious building or another religion that is going to be required to do these kinds of things. They have commercial on three sides and one residential that is zoned commercial or that could go commercial with a CUP. They have a requirement to build a wall out of a see through wrought iron which they didn't want to do. They would like to have the privacy back into their courtyard. They weren't amenable to doing that. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 They were not very excited about building an eight-foot wall along the back. An eight-foot wall wasn't something he could get if he came to them and asked for an eight-foot wall. They would probably say no, six feet was it. When looking through the list of items here, and members of the congregation would speak to some of the other issues, but the first one was the eight-foot wall. He already said no. The trash enclosure they relocated. Regarding the church facility not having day care, he didn't know-how they could say no, they couldn't do that. They weren't providing day care right now, but in the future what if they wanted to provide day care. The gate system and access way on San Jacinto be relocated to an area closer to Alessandro. There was a request from the Kings to move the gate and the church was amenable to that. A gate system across the parking lot, the church could do that but he asked why did they have to do it. He thought Mr. Drell touched on that, that probably the church would probably stop any loitering that would start to go back up through there. The maintenance indoors and outdoors shall be conducted during regular office hours Monday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He asked about someone that came and wanted to do some maintenance on the church on a Saturday morning. The City was only allowing a small grass area and everything else was either pavers or decomposed granite, river rock or concrete, trees or groundcover. So they didn't have lawn mowers and a lot of things going on out there. It wasn't a big mowing situation with a lot of noise. The church facility should not operate a soup kitchen without amendment to the conditional use permit. He said they weren't interested in operating a soup kitchen but again, he thought that was something that if a church, a religious group wanted to provide a soup kitchen, he thought that was something they saw across the nation that goes on. Regarding the special events, he went to a funeral the other day at the Greek Church and it was the middle of the week. They can't plan those special events. They happen. They couldn't make these things happen on Sundays. Regarding the evening activities of the church being limited to offering mass services only, meaning no classes, Mr. Martin stated that the classes were not in duck calls. The class was not in making a lot of noise. It was a class where they would probably be reading religious materials. The bible. He couldn't see how a 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 class in the evening could cause any problem. There were classes at the Greek Church. They even teach Greek there. The next issue was that the exterior patio in the adjacent area not be used after 6:00 p.m. Mr. Martin didn't think that was agreeable. Wherever they had those conditions that would not allow them to do something that a church would do, he didn't think that they would want to agree to that and he was speaking for them at this point. He hoped that the commission would allow everyone to speak even if they didn't fill out a request to speak. card and they would like a chance for any rebuttal. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any questions for Mr. Martin. There weren't. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the project and to please give their name and address for the record and to try to make a different point each time. REVEREND KATHY McCARTHY, 82-061 Hanson Drive in Indio, thanked the commission for allowing them to be present. She said .. she had special greetings from Father Ned Reedy. He would have loved to be here, but he had a commitment to give service as a nurse in South Dakota, so that's where he was. She said they stand with them and deeply appreciate the City's efforts to make this community so beautiful and so agreeable with neighbors and the whole community. She wanted to point out that they have a history. Most of them were with Father Ned at the Newman Center. She was there 15 years with him herself and during that time there were multiple activities, most of them at night because everyone has to make a living and are out working 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. So when do they come to church, when do they come for information, and when do they come to grow spiritually? They come at night. That was the only time they have. Or weekends. There was never a complaint that she had ever heard of at the Newman Center. In the past two and a half years as the Ecumenical Catholic Church, they have been in three locations and no one had ever said they were too noisy or too much, or too anything. They had always been very glad to have them there. Right now they were with Rabbi Paul Citron at Temple Sinai and he and his board have said to please stay as long as they want. No one is complaining about them. They really are good neighbors. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 They really do honor the whole cooperation and appreciation of each other's needs. That is what they stand for. Maybe they were a bit different in the way that they look at church. They really see themselves as a community and in a community people want to be together and want to learn, to grow in their spiritual lives, and they don't see themselves as mass only. Never have and probably never would. They were also in this whole process* of being Christians walking together and learning together so they have to have classes and have to have times when they gather in circles. They couldn't imagine how calm it was. They do book studies and they discuss and the most noise they would ever create would be to say a simple goodbye to each other at 8:30 p.m. when the class is over. They have mass at 5:30 p.m. and it was usually over at 6:15 p.m. They normally start classes at 7:00 p.m. and they are over at 8:30 p.m. So it wasn't like they were open until midnight. She just wanted them to know that what they were studying were things that are about the spirit and nothing that would create a rumpus. Their whole philosophy is that they are a community and cooperation is their hallmark. So they certainly agreed to a peace loving and gracious community. She really thought that the best way to alleviate any fears of who they are and what they do is to be there. They were most welcoming and inclusive and anyone who would like to come, they would love to have one and all. Once they were with them, they really get the spirit of welcome, inclusiveness and joy. She thanked the commission. MS. HELEN BUCKLEY, 1045 Deepak Road in Palm Springs, stated that she comes frequently during the week to evening masses as well as to spirituality studies held at this church. She thought that she wanted to really point out the fact that some of the conditions that are set forth in the staff's proposal are extremely limiting to the operations of this church that have not been applied to other churches whether or not they are surrounded by residential communities. She said she would also suggest to the commission that they appear to conflict with some of the provisions of the Religious Land Use Act of 2000 which in essence says that zoning requirements cannot limit the functions of a church. She hoped that the requirements of this federal statute had been considered in this regard, particularly to the limitations on weddings, funerals 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 tow and baptisms. She could not imagine anything that was more integrally connected to the operation of a church. Specifically, Conditions 23 and 24 were inappropriate in their position. Their studies are spirituality and religious studies. They are part and parcel of what in her view a church is supposed to be doing for its members. She asked for any questions. (There were none.) MS. CELIA PAULS, 45-945 Toro Peak Road in Palm Desert, stated that there are churches in their community that are attended in the hundreds and some in the thousands every Sunday. As part of their weekly services and programs, those congregations have elaborate sound systems and amazing musical productions. That wasn't who they were. She thought it was important for them to understand that they are a small and humble Ecumenical Catholic Community. An occasional acoustic guitar, a drum and a cd playing was about as elaborate as they get. They are -people of ritual and mass and study. In the spirit of their traditions, she asked that it was important that their traditions not be held to measure or limited. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the project. MR. ROBERT KING, 44-841 San Jacinto, stated that he and his wife have been there for 36 years. They also own the property at 44-855 San Jacinto directly north of the proposed project. He said one of the reasons they purchased the property is because it is within the R-3 OP zone which, as designated in the Palma Village Specific Plan, would allow them the option for future development and would add value to the property. They felt that if a block wall for a parking lot was allowed to be constructed across half of San Jacinto Avenue it wouldn't even allow visual access to their property from the Alessandro corridor. Also, they felt the intent of the Specific Plan would not be met. They really wanted to be able to have the option to use this zone designation for their property even if it was on a small scale. A year and a half ago when the medical facility across the street was going through its planning stages they were confronted with the same parking dilemma of not enough parking spaces. They were not offered half of San 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 > Jacinto Avenue for their parking. They had to make adjustments on the size of their building to meet the city's guidelines. Also, when the medical facility on the east side of San Jacinto was approved the City planned and approved a condition that there would be a landscaped radius cul-de-sac created at the end of San Jacinto. The owner has already paid for his half of the project. At the very least they felt the cul-de-sac was a much better concept than a parking lot wall blocking off half of the end of their residential street even if it didn't allow them the use of their property as a commercial entity. Finally, they weren't aware of all of the operating hours when they submitted their letter and their request to the planning staff. Now that they know there will be weekly evening meetings, Saturday meetings, evening meetings, Sundays and, which no one had mentioned yet, holiday events. They could not support this project. MS. IRENE SCHMIT of 44-794 San Jose Avenue stated that she is a 50-year resident of Palm Desert and 45 years in her house. When they closed off San Jacinto she didn't like it, but her daughter lived on that street so that was fine. They closed it off for one reason: the enormous traffic that came from Portola cutting down that street to get to wherever they were going. Now her street is terrible. She was watering Saturday and in five minutes seven cars went by. It is a very busy street. She didn't want parking, and she said that she is a religious person, their religious church that they built in Palm Desert could not be built unless they had the city designated number of parking spaces. That is what they had to have and that is what they did. They downsized their building so they could accommodate that. She didn't approve of closing off the street and putting in parking either. That courtyard is close to the Kings and she asked what was going to be in the courtyard. If they have some type of festivity, to her it would be reasonable to be in the courtyard, maybe the children. She said they are a very quiet neighborhood and this would add something all the time. They couldn't say that people weren't going to park on their streets if more showed up. She didn't want her street blocked off so that if anyone came to visit her they couldn't come because of other people. She didn't want to go out and ask people to move their cars because she 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 wasn't that type of person. She has watched that lot and walks through it all the time and she couldn't see how they could get any kind of building on there or any type of parking. It was not big. She couldn't approve of it herself. She thought it was wonderful that they are religious and that they are spiritual because that is how she felt about her place, but they were in an area where they aren't surrounded with houses and private property. They are quiet. She said she knew that Mr. King gets up around 3:00 a.m. to go to work so he was in bed before they would finish their activities and it could wake him up and he might not be able to go back to sleep. She couldn't see how something could be put in without proper parking when other places have had to comply. If other places don't have proper parking, they aren't approved. Parking on the property, not on the street. She thought that Alessandro after a certain time has signs that vehicles can't be parked there. She wasn't sure what times. MR. CHARLES CLEARY, 44-855 San Jacinto, stated that is the No property that the Kings own immediately north of the proposed project. While he and his wife didn't object to the type of use and thought a church would be the best thing possible to live next to rather than AM/PM or 7-1 1 . He said they have had their share of unusual experiences at 3:00 a.m. with gentlemen and gentlewomen behind the AM/PM. Initially they thought this might be a blessing. But after having read the conditions of the use, he was uncomfortable with the hours of operation. As he spoke to his wife about it, initially they were prepared to sign off and the City planners had done a great job and said they had met every one of their criteria and the commission had approved it in some form or it was coming to them approved, so he thought they had done everything required of them. Yet reading what is going on and contrasting it to the medical building which is right across from them, he thought they were going to be two different things. The medical building is closed at 5:00 p.m. and all weekend long. It is very quiet. That is really the type of building he thought belonged in this buffer zone between the frontage road business and them. They didn't have any problem with the church or bible study and he wasn't so concerned about the volume of noise within the hall, but rather he heard mention of 30 cars in and out. I ngress and 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 egress on a regular basis concerned him quite a bit. It was really very close to them. He said he was pleased to see the architectural rendering, so at least the building isn't right up against the brick wall. One concern was the courtyard. He could imagine that on a nice evening in the winter people would go out there-and have either a celebration, a get together or potluck or something. That was their point. He liked the medical building's use because when they are home in the evenings and on the weekends they don't see anyone. It is very peaceful. It occurred to him that the only time the church will be in business will be in the evenings and on the weekend. In terms of the intrusiveness and he heard Mr. Drell, a scholarly gentleman and he didn't want to contradict him about anything he said about the project, but he said perhaps it would be no more intrusive than any other residence. But again if any of the members came over in the evenings and stood in front of their house, there are still a few unresolved issues with the medical building. They had asked for certain conditions like a wall of a certain height, noting there was a grading differential, and the proposed building sits a couple of feet higher than they do already. One of the concerns they had was the lighting and the builder told him they are $5,000 each. They are beautiful lights. But they were just like spot lights and come over their six-foot wall on their sides which is only four and a half feet on the other side. He had those kinds of concerns. He said the architect addressed them when he said they didn't feel that putting in an eight-foot wall was a good idea. He thought for those reasons it wasn't a good idea to have the church built there. Not for any fundamental religious reasons or moral reasons, but rather he was concerned that there wasn't going to be a buffering zone between this business. It was really substantial. During the day with the amount of traffic with people trying to take shortcuts through that busy Portola-Highway 111 intersection had gotten to be substantial so they were starting to have to deal with that. This probably wouldn't lessen it or make it greater, but the times they are home in the evening and on the weekend he just didn't think they would want any more inconvenience or more people in the neighborhood in such close proximity. He appreciated the church and one lady spoke about federal statute. He appreciated their concerns, but some of the residents have been there for many years and the church came in 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 after the fact and bought a piece of property and then said they wanted them to conform to it. They didn't have any problems with what they wanted to do and hoped they were successful in building their church; but thought that perhaps another location farther away from this residential area would be better. Chairperson Finerty asked if Mr. Martin had any rebuttal comments. Mr. Martin readdressed the commission. Regarding parking, he said there would be eight spaces onsite plus Dr. LeBlanc's office, the use past the surgery center, they have a written agreement with him for an additional 16 spaces. That would give them a total of 24 spaces. The City runs their parking requirements for a church two ways. They would either do it by the gross square footage of the place of worship or the fixed seating by pews. If they went by fixed seating, they would have 24 vehicles which would allow them three persons per vehicle which would equal 72 people and he thought they probably had 30 at the most. That didn't mean they couldn't double. One point about this was that it is a CUP and the commission has control over it. If in a year there is'a problem and this gentleman couldn't stand living next door because it is too noisy they have control over this. He thought that overall in this country we have churches, shuls, synagogues, temples, mosques, and religious buildings all over this country. They are everywhere. They are downtown, they are out in the neighborhoods, in the distant fields and he thought that was all a part of it. He didn't think there was a better place for a religious structure. He thought they happened to go to a place in this case where they could afford to do it and they couldn't afford to buy more property. It was simply not an option. So he hoped the commission would approve it. As he said, it is a CUP and they have a look at this all the time and what goes on. He thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the parking agreement that the church has with the medical facility next door if it was a long-term irrevocable 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 contract. Mr. Drell said that the parking agreement isn't with the medical facility, it is with the dentist farther down. He didn't know if it was long- term or not. Staff didn't feel it was practical. People will park on the street in the vicinity of the church far sooner than they would go and find their way to that parking lot down at the corner. From a practical point of view they didn't see it and thought that the street parking was a far more logical alternative to overflow than parking a block away. Commissioner Tschopp asked if that was how far away it is. Mr. Drell said it was a short block, but people would park closer before they would park farther and there are far more street spaces closer before they start getting down to the spaces on Portola. Regarding CUP's, he said it was a misconception that they could manipulate CUP's over time. They are pretty much limited to applying conditions when they have the opportunity to approve them. They are very limited in adding conditions that they didn't contemplate during the original process. There they run the risk of a use going ahead, doing a tremendous investment, then applying a condition later that would preclude their use. If they couldn't comply with it, then suddenly there was a taking problem. So they were pretty much limited which is why they would rather go in the more cautious vein of starting out with more onerous conditions and as performance dictates make them less stringent. It was much easier to do that then do the opposite which is add more stringent conditions. The second issue was in reference to the Religious Freedom 'Act. The Religious Freedom Act prevents the City from adding or dealing with churches any differently then we would deal with non church secular uses or adding conditions they would not impose on a conventional use. That is what they tried to do here. Mr. Cleary pointed out that the conditions in this case are trying to deal with those circumstances of a church which differ and are more intensive then what the base zone or base designation would provide. He was absolutely correct. The base designation was for offices and the reason why they recommended offices is because of the very reason he said. Offices operate during the day on weekdays and weren't around at night or on the weekends which has made them a good neighbor to most residential uses. This use is to a certain degree the opposite. It is like a big family that is active all the time. Therefore, the conditions staff applied are the same conditions we would apply if this was an office or a medical building that operated on weekends and on evenings. So their regulations are tied to the activity, not to its specific use as a religious facility. Relative to the intensity of 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 the activity, obviously they have gone to great length to provide for very liberal accommodations which staff would not recommend for a typical commercial building or office. If they had an office that required 24 spaces, we would not for a moment suggest a parking lot with eight, so if anything in this case, they have been permissive in trying to find a way to allow the church to function at this site. At the same time they were trying to regulate it in the same way they would regulate any other business on the property. Just like a lot of restaurants, they often come in with very restrictive sorts of regulations and over time as they become familiar with their operation they come back and expand and become more intensive as we learn how they operate. Those restauranteurs had to make that gamble in the beginning that over time they can achieve their full vision. To a certain degree that is what staff was suggesting the church would have to do. The Newman Center was developed with a full parking lot. It meets all of its parking requirements. It has vacant property around it owned by the church, so it is in a very different sort of environment. So they had tried very hard to try and accommodate the use and make exceptions for it while trying to still honor the original intent of the Palma Village Plan which was to provide for uses that were clearly compatible with the adjacent residential uses. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there are 25 conditions of approval under the Department of Community Development section and many of those conditions of approval are limiting in terms of the church's activity. They heard from members of the church and their leadership that it is an issue for them and problematical. It seemed to him that they were all trying too hard to fit a square peg into a round hole. Many of these conditions emanated from the fact that the intensity of use is just not appropriate for this location and for the size of this parcel. He thought staff was trying way too hard to accommodate a use and staff even indicated that if this was an office project there is no way that a parking requirement of 29 spaces would be trimmed down to eight. That is unheard of and he thought that they weren't doing the applicant any favors by accepting that kind of an accommodation because he thought it would be trouble not just for the neighborhood and the community, but the church itself. He said he wouldn't want to face a situation where he is going to any place regularly that has a parking problem and he had to deal with it. So that is one problem. The use and number of people on Sundays: in the mornings and evenings up to 35; Monday through 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 Thursday in the evenings for mass alone 15 people. The prohibition against any classes. He heard the applicant and members of the church indicate that they were into learning and study and one of the conditions is to eliminate classes during the weekdays so that appeared to be an integral part of what the applicant is seeking. Occasional workshops and holidays and so forth all with only eight parking spaces and if a gardener shows up and a cleaning staff, there goes the parking lot. He didn't know what they were trying to do here, but he thought they were heading down the wrong road. The Religious Freedom Act requires that religious institutions be treated in the same way as commercial applicants and we weren't doing that. So he just thought it was a square peg in a round hole and in the long run wouldn't serve anyone. Commissioner Campbell concurred. She couldn't justify having a church impacting on the neighborhood. When this first came to the Planning Commission it was originally only going to be mass and there would be ample parking on the street. Now this was turned around and even though they would have a conditional use permit, like Mr. Martin suggested, if the commission didn't approve the conditional use permit after a year, what happened to the building and the church? She was not in favor of having the church there. Commissioner Tschopp stated that he didn't think it worked for the church. He didn't think it worked for the City either. Given the planned activities and the intensity of activities the church wants to pursue that wasn't a viable spot for the church. Truly if it was just a house of worship on Sundays only it would probably fit very well into the neighborhood, but given the intensity of the planned activities he thought the staff may have gone a little too far in trying to find ways to mitigate the impact to the surrounding neighborhood. He thought the intent of the Palma Village Plan was to have these commercial buildings become a buffer to the residential properties and the proposed activities are more intense than what an office or a professional building would be sitting next to the residential properties. And OP would not allow convenience stores which would have a lot more activity. He encouraged the church to find a place that works better for them because it wouldn't work in this location and didn't work well for the City. The eight spaces versus having 29 parking spaces and the lack of convenient or viable alternative parking was a problem. 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 Commissioner Lopez said it was always a difficult decision to have all of them come before them and speak and he knew that all of their hearts were in the right place. Looking at the property and the site and then going through the conditions, as Mr. Martin indicated there are several of them that he just couldn't buy. They are conditions that just don't work for the church and he agreed. In looking at the site and plans and how it would work, he thought the square peg in a round hole was a great analogy. He thought that they needed to have the church somewhere where they could do whatever they wanted to do without having all of these conditions wrapped around it. They had to figure out the right use of land and the right opportunities, etc., and in this case he didn't believe it was the right use for this particular site. Not for the church and not for the city. Chairperson Finerty concurred. Her question for staff was if there was a resolution of denial. Mr. Drell said that the commission could direct staff to prepare one. She asked if there was motion to that effect. Mr. Drell said that the basic finding would be that the intensity of the activity goes ., beyond the scope of the Palma Village Plan and the proposed office professional use as a buffer between residential uses and commercial. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, instructing staff to prepare a resolution denying Case No. PP 02-07 to be adopted at the next meeting (June 18, 2002). Motion carried 5-0. Chairperson Finerty thanked everyone for coming and taking the time to participate. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. %NEW 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (May 15, 2002) Commissioner Campbell stated that at their last meeting the developer of the Canterra 300-unit apartment project was there showing them the entrance of the apartments and AIPP approved it. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (May 16, 2002) Chairperson Finerty noted that they discussed land use. Commissioner Campbell said there was more discussion about the widening of Portola and the Alessandro Alley. Mr. Drell indicated that there was a recommendation relative to the famous Alessandro Alley where they proposed in the Palma Village Plan that all the lots that back onto the alley be blown out as residential and we have a big parking lot back there. After some comments and suggestions by some of the property owners back there, while waiting for something to happen the last 17 years, there was a suggestion that maybe given today's housing designs there were many housing designs that can survive on smaller lots. Instead of blowing those lots out and having in essence no residential frontage on the end of those circles that we have a modified design for just a double loaded parking aisle which would only take about a third of the lots leaving the balance for homes so they would still have homes fronting on those circles. They came up with a design that would accomplish that and still allow about 70,000 square feet of expansion of business on Highway 111 and still accommodating about 2,500 square feet of expansion per lot, but better preserving the residential character of those little circles. So the committee endorsed that concept and now they were looking at Portola with the thought of planning for the ultimate six lane section with bike paths and a planted landscape median and curbside parkway so they wouldn't have the sidewalk right up 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 against the freeway. At the next meeting they should have a section design to show that and it would indicate how much land is left over on the west side of the street to determine the appropriate land use on the remainder lots. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (May 28, 2002) Chairperson Finerty noted that she didn't attend, but they discussed compost reuse, landscaping at 1-1 0 at Monterey and Washington, the charger landscape design, the atrium design suggestions and wellsites update. F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (May 20, 2002) Chairperson Finerty stated that they were still trying to figure out what to do at Hovley and Oasis with a signal versus a median. Mr. Drell clarified that there was a recommendation to accept it by the committee. He said this was where the double stop is to eliminate the break in the median so that they would only have right turn in and out from Kansas and only right turn in and out at Country Club which would solve the turning conflict. Mr. Diercks said that was correct. Mr. Drell said that would eliminate the confusion by eliminating the double stop. Chairperson Finerty also noted that there was an update on the regional park and it would be coming to the Planning Commission at the next meeting on June 18. Mr. Drell said that was correct. G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Jonathan said that he would like to suggest an item for a future agenda. He said they are a planning commission and it occurred to him frequently that from a planning standpoint this city needed to underground its utilities throughout residential areas. When they look at 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 an area that doesn't have above ground utilities, subconsciously they think it looks nice and when they see utilities and wires crossing streets, subconsciously they think something looks wrong with the neighborhood and it doesn't look very good. Since it didn't seem to be happening, he asked if that process could begin here. Mr. Drell said that there is a program. Commissioner Jonathan said he knew that and had been hearing that for 15 years. Mr. Drell said that it is a very expensive proposition and he believed there is a residential program where we will assist assessment districts maybe up to 50%. Commissioner Jonathan said that he would like a fuller discussion on this and perhaps could get the ball rolling on the City being more proactive on that program. Mr. Drell said we are. He said there has been a district formed under that program in Silver Spur Ranch. He said we could have Pat Conlon, the undergrounding expert, give a summary of the direction of the program. Commissioner Jonathan thought that would be great if that was the pleasure of the commission. Commission concurred. Mr. Hargreaves stated that the question came up about what happens when we have a permit that is arguably invalid and the City's right to back track and correct a mistake that has been made. The law on that is basically that the City is not precluded from correcting its mistakes. The reason is if it was just a matter of the City making a mistake and suffering the consequences that would be one thing. But what happens is if the City makes a mistake in applying a law that is really there to protect the public, then they have to take the public's interest into consideration as to whether or not they can correct it. So there was a certain amount of balancing that goes on but the bottom line is that if there is a law, policy or condition that has been imposed for the benefit of neighbors and they were there participating in the process, they couldn't undercut the bargain they bargained for when they participated in the process by having someone at the staff level make an incorrect determination. So the kind of process we went through this evening was entirely appropriate. He stated that he copied off a case that kind of ran through some examples of that if the commission was interested. It contained a lot of legal jargon in the beginning, but in the last few pages they run through some examples where some people have even made some significant investments based on permits that were improperly issued and they were required to back track and correct the situation. If 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2002 they started reading it, there was a principle in there called estoppel and that word meant preclusion. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. STE HEN R. SMITH, Acting Secretary ATTEST: CINDY FINERT'y, Chairperson J Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm VOW 45 Y1 i�rte ��0100 .)- ,a I � a �4 v Gr IL dt IL c ��� w r e 4 r w �<, 6. tr , . ol4o x , t 4l' 4 2 • fH } *AW69 c 3�. z r i u f. • • 1 M �}s �ti'`�� 1, ' 4�1� � •� � �i,��#"��J� 73 Ilk 1� /Y. ♦ C C� x O Sv _ CL CD cn ., :. < CD N 7 0 `G D cn 0 � CD {=r co 'I b n CD CD O fi 4 cn 0' D �m- < tD N p 07 e" CD CD O- '•, N e (II O CD CD • �« �► CD cn 4 O 4� O ` CD CD n v 70 CD O D CD cn cn CO 3 rn NNil X_ }.. Ch U) r. CD < 4 rn o CDCD a { �I M O CR o CD C— 07 �+ _ O X m x < < r E CDCO0- CD . . CD a 1A cn CD O CD to ff •�1 17 -� Q T� N •z� P �ENE m � I Z 8 (.INE Y i ?r_4 �z e F. C, t s: • f $ w x a